Experiential Learning Style Grouping Impact on Student Outcomes in Team Leadership Coursework

Abstract

This study explores how different team configurations based on members’ experiential learning styles impacted group level variables including team learning behavior, stages of team development, potency, psychological safety, and satisfaction in an undergraduate class. Groups with homogeneous learning styles experienced higher levels of friendship and lower levels of conflict, which were associated with greater satisfaction and more rapid progress through the stages of group development. Most significantly, satisfaction was more strongly correlated to team learning behavior than psychological safety, suggesting that student groups in higher education settings may rely on other factors to progress through the stages of group development.

Keywords

experiential learning style team leadership heterogenous groups homogenous groups undergraduate leadership education team learning behavior

Learning is “a process in which knowledge is created by the transformation of experience” (Kolb, 1984, p. 38). Experiential learning theory (ELT) proposes that this process is complex, and individuals vary in how they perceive and assimilate experiences into preexisting knowledge (Kolb, 1984, 2015). These variations have been classified into unique learning styles that describe ways individuals progress through the learning cycle. Although there are varying viewpoints on the validity of learning styles (Kirschner, 2017; Pashler et al., 2008; Simmonds, 2014), research has generated many questions in higher education institutions (HEI) regarding how to effectively educate an increasing number of undergraduate students with differing learning preferences to prepare them for professional life (Dunne & Rawlins, 2000). As HEI enrollment and the prevalence of social constructivist theory in higher education has expanded, team-based and collaborative learning theories have emerged to accommodate student learning and application of course content in larger university classes (Doolittle & Camp, 1999; McCubbins, 2016; Michaelsen et al., 2004).

Koles et al. (2010) showed that team-based learning can improve student performance on exam questions, improve overall grades, and have a positive impact on students’ learning. Other studies have shown that team learning increases knowledge retention, improves project quality, develops social, cognitive, and reasoning skills, and enhances student satisfaction with the educational experience (Dillenbourg, 1999; Schlichter, 1997). Current research on ELT indicates teams are most effective when they emphasize the four basic learning modes (concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation) while following the learning cycle, which provides mechanisms that can transition teams from lower to higher levels of development (Kolb & Kolb, 2009). Research suggests that teams composed of individuals with diverse learning styles are more effective than homogenous teams as members tend to have a more equal chance of contributing to team activities that emphasize different parts of the learning cycle (Jackson, 2002). However, learning style diversity was not found to be related to experiential learning work norms (ELWN), and was also much less important to team performance than ELWN in teams with non-routine tasks (Jules, 2007). Teamwork literature supports this concept, indicating that team members must understand how teams develop, how to manage conflict, and the impact of member roles on group satisfaction and performance in order to balance task and interpersonal relationships as groups progress through stages of development. (Gersick, 1991; Scott-Ladd & Chan, 2008; Tuckman & Jensen, 1977).

The findings regarding ELWN and their impact on team performance in non-routine tasks may provide some explanation for why students who participate in team learning often complain about group work. Students frequently report numerous factors that negatively impact team performance and student satisfaction with the learning process (Chen et al., 2004; Edmondson et al., 2001; Hall, 1996; Kayes et al., 2005; Lee et al., 2017). Edmondson (1999) found that trusting relationships among students in group settings was a critical element of performance and team learning. However, most individuals typically lack feelings of trust and psychological safety at lower levels of group development (Kayes et al., 2005; Lingham, 2004). This is especially problematic considering high levels of psychological safety, team potency, and team cohesiveness are essential to positive student perceptions of team learning outcomes, performance, and satisfaction (Bravo et al., 2019; Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007). Burdett and Hastie (2009) found that perceptions of fair workload distribution among group members and perception of learning outcomes were positively correlated. Alternatively, intergroup conflict may negatively impact motivation to fully engage in group learning activities (Lizzio et al., 2002). Although a great deal of research has investigated the impact of learning styles on team composition and its impact on team performance, almost no research has been done to elucidate the interaction of learning styles on team cohesiveness, potency, and psychological safety in undergraduate learning environments (Kayes et al., 2005; Sandmire & Boyce, 2004; Wolfe, 1976). Furthermore, the literature does not paint a clear picture about what is most important for undergraduate students’ effective team learning. Could it be diversity of learning styles, which may lead to more early conflict in team development but has been shown to allow higher levels of group performance? Or is it more rapidly reaching higher levels of group development in homogenous groups, which may prevent the highest levels of group performance but tend to allow more satisfaction in small groups? Indeed, Wyss-Flamm’s (2003) study on multicultural undergraduate teams found that teams who reported high levels of psychological safety were much more likely than teams with low psychological safety to participate in the full team experiential learning process, without considering learning styles.

This study sought to understand of the impact of grouping by ELT learning styles on student perceptions of team potency, psychological safety, stages of group development, and satisfaction with the collaborative learning process.

Theoretical Framework and Literature Review

Experiential Learning Theory and Learning Styles

The ELT model explains how individuals perceive and transform experiences into knowledge. The central premise of the model is the resolution of the conflict between concrete experience (CE) and abstract conceptualization (AC), and reflective observation (RO) and active experimentation (AE). These dialectically related ways of perceiving and transforming experience exist in a cycle individuals progress through as they grasp new experiences. Learners prefer different parts of the learning cycle based on their personal characteristics and experiences. The Kolb Learning Style Inventory (KLSI) assesses individual learners’ learning style preferences, characterizing nine learning styles (see Figure 1; Kolb, 2013). Culture, personality, education, career choice, and current employment responsibilities all impact learning style preference (Kolb, 1984; Kolb & Kolb, 2012).

Figure 1.

Learning styles as described in the Kolb learning style inventory version 3.2.

Learning styles have important implications for group design in the ELT team learning model. Wolfe (1977) proposed that specific learning styles did not provide advantages in group simulations; however, heterogenous teams with multiple learning styles performed significantly better than homogenous teams. Jackson (2002) had teams of people unfamiliar with one another compete in activities, finding that in 17 of 18 cases heterogeneous teams based on learning styles outperformed homogenous teams. Case studies in educational settings have shown that student pairs whose KLSI scores were closer together scored significantly worse than pairs who were farther apart (Sandmire & Boyce, 2004). ELT scholars now generally accept that diversity of learning styles is critical to the development and ultimate performance of a team (Kayes et al., 2005; Kolb & Kolb, 2012) and suggest that the model and learning styles have powerful implications for collaborative learning in higher education institutions (Kayes et al., 2005). Although ELT and learning styles provide a strong model for learning in groups, they do not account specifically for issues of group dynamics and interpersonal behavior. For a deeper understanding of how groups work together effectively one must look to the research in team learning, group composition, and team cohesion.

Team Learning and Stages of Development

“Team learning is a compilation of team-level processes that circularly generates change or improvement, primarily at the level of the team, and also at the level of individuals or the organization” (Decuyper et al., 2010, p. 128). Team learning is facilitated by three basic process variables, sharing, co-construction, and constructive conflict (Wilson et al., 2007). Sharing is the process of communicating knowledge between individual team members and the group. The level of detail and the number of members involved in this process determine the quality of team learning (Decuyper et al., 2010; Wilson et al., 2007). Co-construction is a mutual process where team members take knowledge that has been shared and develop, build on, or refine this knowledge into new shared meanings. Sharing is a precondition for co-construction and requires the team to actively discuss the concept or task in question (Decuyper et al., 2010; Van den Bossche et al., 2006). Constructive conflict between team members arises from diversity of opinion, identity, and open communication and ultimately ends in integration of different viewpoints. Constructive conflict differs from regular conflict in that it makes team member cognitions and beliefs more malleable, allowing for knowledge transformation, learning, and conceptual advancement. Co-construction and constructive conflict are each required for the other process to operate most effectively. The goal of a team striving to improve team learning should be to create a conversational space where co-construction can take place and benefit from the presence of a healthy dialog that includes constructive conflict (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Decuyper et al., 2010; Van den Bossche et al., 2006).

These team learning processes are not present during the initial formation of the team, but instead, develop over time as individuals learn to work together. Dechant et al. (1993) determined that there are four stages in the development of team learning processes. During the fragmented learning stage, team members learn as individuals and are more concerned with acceptance and protecting their opinions than team success. The pooled learning stage is characterized by the formation of small alliances within the team where knowledge and interests are shared but the group is still fragmented in the learning process. Team members begin to share with the entire team and shared knowledge grows as each member adds their resources to the whole during the synergistic learning stage. Finally, team learning processes become the norm for the group and occur on a continuous basis as teams work toward task achievement in the continuous learning stage (Dechant et al., 1993).

Teams do not progress through the stages of team learning without great effort and interpersonal risk-taking, especially in professional or educational settings (Edmondson, 1999). Individuals in these environments are unlikely to show vulnerability and participate in reflective conversation about shared experiences unless they feel confident about the outcomes of that action, which comes from psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999; Kayes et al., 2005).

Psychological safety is a team-level concept “describing individuals’ perceptions about the consequences of interpersonal risks in their work environment” (Edmondson, 2004, p. 241). Psychological safety is a person’s beliefs about how their teammates will respond when the individual engages in risk-taking behaviors that leave the individual vulnerable, such as asking questions, requesting feedback, or proposing new ideas. Team psychological safety has a powerful influence on learning behavior and team performance because it allows individuals to embrace error and seek constructive criticism, which are critical components of team learning (Edmondson, 1999; Kayes et al., 2005). Edmondson (1999) found that teams lacking psychological safety were less likely to ask for assistance and unwilling to challenge team goals or engage in constructive conflict for fear of rejection. Other researchers have confirmed that individual perceptions of a lack of psychological safety inhibit team learning behaviors (Edmondson, 2004; Kayes et al., 2005; Van den Bossche et al., 2006).

The growth of psychological safety in teams is part of the normal group development process. Wheelan (2005) describes five sequential stages of normal group development:

Dependency and inclusion: Characterized by high concerns regarding psychological safety, greater dependency on leaders, and more focus on inclusion issues over task accomplishment.

Counterdependency and fight: Conflict is the central theme of this stage. Teams must engage in constructive conflict to set team goals, agree upon procedures, and form a climate of trust where members feel unafraid to disagree with each other. Groups that survive Stage 2 will see increased levels of psychological safety, team cohesion, and willingness to cooperate.

Trust and structure: Characterized by mature negotiations about group processes and solidifying positive working relationships between group members.

Work: Having resolved most of the issues of the previous stages of development the team is able to focus more resources on task achievement.

Termination: The end of the group, which may include disruption, conflict, and separation issues.

Wheelan et al. (2003) reported that it takes between 4.6 and 8.5 months for small groups of about 4 to 14 members to reach Stage 4 of group development. Additionally, smaller groups of three to six members have a much greater chance of progressing to higher stages of group development than groups of seven or more (Wheelan, 2009). It is important to consider the time commitment necessary to achieve higher levels of group development because research has shown that team learning and stages of team development are related (see Figure 2; Raes et al., 2015). Teams that achieve Stage 3 or higher are more likely to undertake team learning behaviors than groups who remain in Stages 1 and 2 (Raes et al., 2015). Raes et al. (2015) found that team learning behaviors are more likely to occur in later stages of group development because of increased psychological safety. Teams in Stage 1 or 2 were more fragmented and learned as individuals but did not show levels of cooperation necessary to engage in team learning (Raes et al., 2015). In addition, teams who discussed the process of team development and the importance of psychological safety were able to navigate to Stage 4 more quickly than groups who did not discuss these issues openly (Hall, 2007; Wheelan, 2005). Furthermore, group potency, or the collective belief of individual members that a team can be successful, was also a critical variable necessary for higher levels of team development and team learning (Sbea & Guzzo, 1987).

Figure 2.

Stages of group development and team learning stages.

Team Potency and Team Cohesion

Team potency is a social state that emerges during team development and is characterized by a shared confidence between group members about the individual and collective ability of the team (Van den Bossche et al., 2006). Previous research demonstrated that team potency is a good predictor for higher levels of learning behavior even without psychological safety (Sbea & Guzzo, 1987; Van den Bossche et al., 2006). The concept of group potency stems from the idea of self-efficacy in task achievement as described by Bandura (1982). As group potency increases, the collective motivation and performance of the group should improve as well (Cohen & Bailey, 1997). This increased confidence should positively influence the ability of the group to persevere in periods of adversity, more effectively regulate team learning processes, and encourage advancement to higher stages of group development (Gully et al., 2002; Van den Bossche et al., 2006).

Cohesion is “the result of all the forces acting on the members to remain in the group” (Festinger, 1950, p. 274). It is important to differentiate between social cohesion and task cohesion. Social cohesion refers to the emotional bonds of friendship and includes liking, caring, and closeness between group members (Decuyper et al., 2010; Van den Bossche et al., 2006). Task cohesion is the shared commitment to achieve a common goal that requires all members of the group to work together. Past research has found that social cohesion is only weakly related to team learning whereas task cohesion is significantly related to the development of team learning processes and group development (Decuyper et al., 2010; Van den Bossche et al., 2006). Task cohesion is strongest in teams that have more than 12 meetings and have between five and nine group members (Burlingame et al., 2019). Additionally, the degree of cohesion can be positively impacted by the similarity of group members. Teams with adequate task cohesion are more likely to be open to additional data when making decisions (Kayes et al., 2005). Moreover, these teams are less likely to experience group dysfunctions such as groupthink that can be associated with high levels of unregulated team social cohesion (Kayes et al., 2005). Van den Bossche et al. (2006) found that higher levels of task cohesion promoted team learning processes, task commitment, and allowed for a greater degree of sharing and co-construction between group members. This increased engagement in learning activities brought about by team cohesion gave rise to mutually shared cognition, allowed for greater constructive conflict, and led to team members’ perceptions of higher group effectiveness (Van den Bossche et al., 2006).

Learning style preferences are diverse among students in higher education, which can be detrimental when students lack the emotional intelligence or other prerequisite teamwork skills to effectively collaborate in groups in classroom settings (Herreid, 1998; Hulme, 1996). Although many team profile theories demonstrate that diversity of group member attributes may improve team processes and effectiveness, research shows that diversity effects are highly contextual, and examining specific types of diversity yields larger effect sizes in quantitative studies of team performance than analyses of diversity in general (Bell et al., 2011; Mathieu et al., 2014). Kyprianidou et al. (2012) found that when college students were grouped heterogeneously by learning styles, they overcame reservations about groupwork and collaborated successfully when the instructors increased student awareness and facilitated conversation regarding individual learning styles. Prior research supports Kypriandiou’s work showing that students who participate in team-based learning exercises may work together more effectively when they better understand individual group member learning preferences (Scott-Ladd & Chan, 2008).

Given that undergraduate courses are, at most, 16-weeks in length, there may be challenges in using team learning in educational settings. Team learning processes are critically dependent on team potency and psychological safety, which may take as much as 4 months to develop sufficiently for optimal team learning to take place (Decuyper et al., 2010; Van den Bossche et al., 2006; Wheelan, 2005). However, research has shown that teams can navigate more quickly to Stage 4 when they are provided facilitation in team learning, team development, and psychological safety (Hall, 2007; Raes et al., 2015; Wheelan, 2005).

Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine whether student teams grouped by ELT learning styles, as defined by the KLSI 3.2, were more effective in homogenous or heterogenous configurations in an undergraduate class that emphasizes communication and leadership in groups and teams. Specific research objectives included:

Describe group level outcomes of team learning, team development, potency, satisfaction, and psychological safety.

Compare group level outcomes of team learning, team development, potency, satisfaction, and psychological safety by grouping type.

Method

This research employed a mixed methods case study approach. A census of 28 undergraduate students (22 female and 6 male) enrolled in AEC 4434, Communication and Leadership in Groups and Teams was utilized. AEC 4434 is a semester-long course that was taught in the Fall 2019 semester at a tier one research institution in the southeast United States. At the beginning of the semester, all students completed the Kolb Learning Style Inventory version 3.2 (KLSI) to determine individual learning style preferences (Kolb, 2013). All nine distinct learning styles were represented among the students. Students were sorted into six groups based solely on learning style, resulting in two homogenous groups, two heterogenous groups, and two predominant-style groups. Predominant-style groups consisted of a majority of team members possessing the same learning style, accented by a different style preferred by the remaining member. Four groups had five members and two groups had four members. One student did not complete the KLSI and was therefore placed in a predominant-style group. Team 1 consisted of five students with initiating as their preferred learning style. Four students with acting as their preferred style made up Team 2. Teams 3 and 4 were both five member teams that were completely heterogenous with no team members possessing the same preferred learning style. Team 5 consisted of four members, the majority possessing a balancing learning style preference. Finally, Team 6 consisted of five members, the majority possessing a reflecting learning style preference.

Yin (2002) suggested that a combination of quantitative and qualitative data sources is critical to rigorous analysis in a case study approach. According to Creswell and Clark (2017) the intent of convergent mixed methods design is to examine how the data sets expand understanding and to see to what extent the quantitative and qualitative results converge and diverge. Data for this study were derived from individual and team assignments submitted over the course of the semester. In addition to individual learning activities and assignments, teams completed a team-determined project consisting of multiple collaborative activities and assignments. Course activities and assignments allowed for assessment of team learning, team development, potency, member satisfaction, and psychological safety at various points across the semester. Since data were products of regularly scheduled learning activities, participant consent for use of the data was sought once the semester was complete and final grades for the course had been submitted, in accordance with University IRB approved protocol (IRB202000698).

Data Collection

Knowledge test

A 10-item pre- and post-course knowledge test was administered during the first and last week of class to measure students’ knowledge gain. The test was developed by the instructor of the course and assessed student knowledge of course content taught in during the semester.

Team evaluation questionnaires (TEQ)

Students completed two online questionnaires as a required component of a team learning activity. The questionnaires were completed individually by students via Qualtrics online software. Students completed the first questionnaire by week 7 of class and the second by week 14 of class. The Team Evaluation Questionnaire (TEQ) included 40 items adapted from two previously validated instruments, the Team Learning Beliefs and Behaviors Questionnaire (TLB&B-Q) and the Relational Satisfaction Scale (RSS) (Anderson et al., 2001; Van den Bossche et al., 2006) and assessed stages of team development, team learning behavior, potency, psychological safety, and satisfaction. The TEQ responses were aggregated by individual per construct and by group to determine overall individual and group scores.

Anderson et al. (2001) determined the RSS to be a valid and reliable instrument for measuring individual satisfaction with a group or team (α = .89). The TLB&B-Q designed by Van den Bossche et al. (2006) and adapted by Raes et al. (2015) measures team learning behavior, team development, group potency, and team psychological safety. Raes et al. (2015) reported Cronbach’s alpha of .89 for team learning behavior, .79 for psychological safety, .84 for group potency, and .80 for stages of team development.

Focus groups

Focus groups were conducted during the final week of the semester to help students reflect on their learning experiences. The questions posed in the focus groups assessed student perceptions of team learning behavior, stages of team development, potency, psychological safety, and satisfaction (see the Appendix). Students were separated into six focus groups and no group contained members of the same student teams in order to inspire greater authenticity in participant responses. Six different moderators conducted the focus groups, none of whom were associated with the course in any instructional capacity. The moderator’s guide was developed by the research team and disseminated to moderators for review in advance of the focus groups. It included five questions, each with a follow-up question. Conversations lasted approximately 1 hour. Focus groups were recorded using audio recorders and transcribed by a third-party transcription service.

Data Analysis

Quantitative data were organized by group type (homogeneous, heterogenous, and predominant-style) and then compared through a split-plot repeated measures analysis of variance (RM ANOVA). Focus group transcripts were analyzed following the conclusion of the course and posting of final grades. Codes were developed through analytical theoretical triangulation, which involved a deductive approach to coding based on a review of the transcripts while also accounting for pre-existing theory on team learning behavior, stages of team development, group potency, psychological safety, and satisfaction (Ravitch & Carl, 2015). Qualitative analysis was conducted independently by two researchers. Although a priori coding was used, the two researchers had regular weekly meetings during a 4-week period to compare results and discuss emergent themes in the data. Creswell (2018) recommended being open to emergent coding in a priori design as long as researchers can codify emergent themes into the research framework. Researchers aimed to elucidate maximum understanding by analyzing where quantitative and qualitative data converged and diverged.

Results and Findings

Quantitative Results

Twenty-four of the 28 participants completed both administrations of the Team Evaluation Questionnaire (TEQ), and 22 completed both the knowledge pre-test and post-test. Two respondents requested their data not be used in the study (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Team Evaluation Questionnaire and Knowledge Test Descriptive Statistics.

	Homogenous		Heterogenous		Predominant-style
	Time 1	Time 2	Time 1	Time 2	Time 1	Time 2
	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)
Stage 1	2.96 (1.29)	2.93 (0.84)	2.85 (0.83)	2.33 (0.79)	2.82 (2.02)	2.68 (0.53)
Stage 2	4.39 (1.68)	2.93 (1.14)	2.40 (0.77)	2.03 (0.89)	3.54 (1.56)	3.07 (1.71)
Stage 3	6.09 (0.77)	6.46 (0.57)	6.22 (0.88)	6.62 (0.46)	6.17 (0.41)	6.29 (0.75)
Stage 4	5.62 (0.89)	6.14 (0.72)	6.48 (0.76)	6.65 (0.67)	5.66 (0.76)	5.86 (1.11)
Satisfaction	4.41 (0.46)	4.51 (0.39)	4.63 (0.30)	4.68 (0.38)	4.18 (0.28)	4.07 (0.44)
Psychological safety	5.89 (0.90)	6.26 (0.70)	6.14 (0.84)	6.50 (0.39)	5.66 (1.26)	5.37 (1.26)
Team learning behavior	5.89 (0.97)	6.38 (0.55)	6.53 (0.76)	6.70 (0.62)	5.84 (0.62)	6.06 (0.94)
Group potency	6.41 (0.50)	6.61 (0.54)	6.49 (0.82)	6.68 (0.55)	6.61 (0.56)	6.36 (0.71)
Knowledge test	0.89 (0.76)	3.80 (0.70)	1.62 (1.54)	4.33 (0.87)	0.98 (1.17)	3.33 (1.78)

The TEQs and knowledge tests were analyzed by group type using split-plot repeated measures analysis of variance (RM ANOVA, Table 2). Nine variables were included in the analysis: the four stages of group development (Wheelan, 2005), satisfaction, psychological safety, team learning behavior, group potency, and knowledge. Given the exploratory nature of the study, our sample size of fewer than 30 participants, and the presence of corroborating qualitative data, RM ANOVA findings are presented as nearly significant if p < .10 but are only described as significant if p < .05.

Table 2.

Split-Plot RM ANOVA of the Team Evaluation Questionnaire and Knowledge Test.

	Effects	df	F	p	η_p²
Stage 1	Time	1	0.588	.450	.027
	Stage 1 × time	2	0.263	.770	.024
	Error	21
Stage 2	Time	1	3.633	.070	.147
	Stage 2 × time	2	0.730	.494	.065
	Error	21
Stage 3	Time	1	4.510	.046	.177
	Stage 3 × time	2	0.410	.665	.038
	Error	21
Stage 4	Time	1	3.082	.094	.128
	Stage 4 × time	2	0.450	.644	.041
	Error	21
Satisfaction	Time	1	0.073	.789	.003
	Satisfaction × time	2	1.139	.339	.098
	Error	21
Potency	Time	1	0.164	.690	.008
	Potency × time	2	1.729	.202	.141
	Error	21
Psychological safety	Time	1	0.590	.451	.027
	Psych safety × time	2	1.202	.320	.103
	Error	21
Team Learning behavior	Time	1	4.434	.047	.174
	TLB × time	2	0.498	.615	.045
	Error	21
Knowledge test	Time	1	84.832	.000	.817
	Knowledge Test × time	2	0.050	.951	.005
	Error	19

The split-plot RM ANOVA demonstrated a significant improvement in knowledge from pre- to post-test, F(1,19) = 84.83, p < .001, η_p² = .82. However, there was no significant difference in knowledge between groups over time, suggesting that the groups were statistically similar, F(1,19) = .05, p = .95, η_p² < .01. Post-hoc analysis supported this conclusion, finding no significant differences between group types.

RM ANOVA did not uncover significant interaction effects between satisfaction, psychological safety, group potency, team learning behavior, and time. However, time was a significant main effect for team learning behavior, with all group types reporting significantly higher scores at the second test F(1,21) = 4.43, p = .047, η_p² = .17. A Bonferroni analysis of estimated marginal means demonstrated significant differences in satisfaction (p = .017) between heterogeneous groups and predominant-style groups (see Table 2).

No statistically significant interaction effects were uncovered when analyzing the stages of group development over time. However, significant main effects were found with differences over time and post-hoc analysis revealed differences between group types in some stages. Specifically, time as a main effect was statistically significant in Stage 3, F(1,21) = 4.51, p = .046, η_p² = .18, with mean scores increasing between time 1 and time 2, and a nearly significant increase in Stage 4, F(1,21) = 3.08, p = .094, η_p² = .13. Mean scores in Stage 2 decreased from time 1 to time 2 at a nearly significant rate, F(1,21) = 3.63, p = .07, η_p² = .15. Post-hoc Bonferroni analysis showed significant differences between groups on Stage 2. Heterogeneous groups scored significantly lower (p = .006) than homogeneous groups and lower (p = .046) than the predominant-style groups. Analysis of Stage 4 also found nearly significant differences (p = .094) between heterogeneous groups and predominant-style groups.

It is important to note that partial eta squared was one method used as an effect size estimate in this study. Partial eta squared (η_p²) measures the variance explained by the independent variable after all other effects have been separated out (Cohen, 1988). Although Cohen (1988) cautiously suggested that .01 could be considered a small effect size, .06 could be considered moderate, and .14 could be viewed as a large effect size for η_p², other researchers have suggested that comparing effect sizes within research traditions is a better approach for interpretation (Richardson, 2011). However, given that partial eta squared has not often been reported in small group research, it is difficult to make an interpretation of these effect sizes using comparisons from within this research tradition. What the results from this study indicate is that time alone significantly explains between 13% and 18% of the change in stages of group development and 17% of the variance in team learning behavior, regardless of group type. Given a recent meta-analytic study in the journal of small group research that reports 92 effect sizes across 43 studies explaining on average 18% of the variance in team learning behavior, we would consider the effect size in this study to be of at least moderate strength, but to be interpreted cautiously until more group research using partial eta squared can be reported (Koeslag-Kreunen et al., 2018).

Correlational analysis was conducted to understand the strength and magnitude of the relationships between the variables at time 1 (see Table 3) and time 2 (see Table 4). Stages 1 and 2 were positively correlated with each other, and negatively correlated to all other variables at both time points. However, several differences in correlations between time 1 and time 2 were noted. First, team learning behavior (TLB) and psychological safety were strongly and significantly correlated at time 1 and only moderately and insignificantly correlated at time 2. Second, group potency was only moderately correlated to Stage 3 and satisfaction at time 1 but was strongly correlated to Stage 3, Stage 4, satisfaction, and TLB at time 2. Third, Stage 2 was moderately negatively correlated to Stage 4 and psychological safety at time 1 but was strongly negatively correlated to Stage 3, Stage 4, and satisfaction, as well as moderately correlated to group potency and TLB at time 2. Finally, psychological safety was a moderate or strong correlate of five different variables at time 1 but only a strong or moderate correlate of two variables, satisfaction and group potency, at time 2.

Table 3.

Pearson Correlation Coefficients at Time 1.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Stage 1
2. Stage 2	0.50*
3. Stage 3	−0.38	−0.19
4. Stage 4	−0.14	−0.41*	0.68**
5. Satisfaction	−0.43*	−0.37	0.53**	0.66**
6. Group potency	−0.32	−0.11	0.41*	0.40	0.54**
7. Psych safety	−0.74**	−0.47*	0.54**	0.40	0.54**	0.24
8. TLB	−0.40	−0.36	0.64**	0.69**	0.82**	0.34	0.55**
9. Pre-test	−0.39	−0.47*	−0.30	0.05	0.07	−0.07	0.13	0.13

Note. *p < .05, 2-tailed. **p < .01, 2-tailed.

Table 4.

Pearson Correlation Coefficients at Time 2.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Stage 1
2. Stage 2	0.54**
3. Stage 3	−0.30	−0.50*
4. Stage 4	−0.43*	−0.63**	0.89**
5. Satisfaction	−0.32	−0.60**	0.70**	0.82**
6. Group potency	−0.21	−0.44*	0.81**	0.84**	0.70**
7. Psych safety	−0.18	−0.27	0.30	0.44*	0.69**	0.26
8. TLB	−0.36	−0.45*	0.89**	0.89**	0.68**	0.78**	0.28
9. Post-test	−0.41	−0.28	0.05	0.22	0.38	−0.10	0.59**	0.05

Note. *p < .05, 2-tailed. **p < .01, 2-tailed.

Qualitative Findings

A convergent mixed methods design was used in this study. The goal of convergent mixed methods is to independently analyze quantitative data and qualitative data, separately, and then to merge the data to assess the ways results converge and diverge (Creswell & Clark, 2017). In this case, an explanatory unidirectional framework was utilized. In this framework, quantitative data was used to frame the analysis and qualitative interview data was used to provide a more in-depth understanding of the quantitative data collected (Moseholm & Fetters, 2017). Qualitative data was used to elucidate the complexities underlying the team dynamics assessed by the TEQ.

Experiential learning style

Several key themes emerged from analysis of the focus groups. First, and perhaps most important, experiential learning style did not appear to be the most important factor contributing to group development. For example, students in the heterogeneous groups often commented on how similar members were in their work approach. Eight of the nine (88.89%) focus group participants from heterogeneous groups reported having similar mindsets regarding how to complete their team projects. Participant D-20 (Heterogeneous) stated, “I would say that we all approached it in a very similar way. We all just had the same mindset about it, so it ended up working very well for each of us.” Participant C-14 (Heterogeneous) agreed:

We all worked very similarly. We all knew we have a job to get done, a task to complete. From the first assignment, we kind of figured out the best way for us to do that, and we just continuously used that same way throughout every other assignment, and we just—it flowed pretty easily for us.

In contrast, students in homogenous and predominant-style groups often felt their group members were different from each other, which caused problems with group cohesion. Nine of the 16 (56.25%) focus group participants from these groups described differences in how they and their teammates approached tasks, including Participant D-24 (Predominant), who said, “I’m more of a procrastinator and then we had one team member who wanted everything done a month before, so I think we differed a lot on that.” Sometimes, differences in how group members communicated about completing group assignments led to interpersonal conflict:

I think my team specifically, they may have just been—I don’t know if it was just personality or maybe just culturally different because sometimes. . . things just got tense, or we just didn’t know how to communicate professionally in a way that we’d just be like, okay, let’s just talk this out, and let’s just move on from things (Participant A-4, Predominant).

The fact that heterogeneous groups consistently reported similar approaches and perspectives on completing work as compared to the homogeneous and predominant-style groups suggests that factors other than experiential learning style were more significant to student perceptions of similarity.

Satisfaction

Heterogeneous groups were most satisfied with their team performance. Six of nine (66.67%) students in heterogeneous groups reported that they had transcended expected group relationships and become friends with their teammates, compared to only 5 of 16 (31.25%) homogeneous and predominant-style group participants. An independent t-test compared time 2 satisfaction scores of students who reported friendship with their teammates (n = 11, M = 4.70) to those who did not (n = 13, M = 4.28). The difference was significant, t(22) = 2.54, p = .019, suggesting one explanation for the difference in satisfaction between the groups. This is illustrated by Participant C-14 (Heterogeneous), who said:

If there was something past satisfactory, I think we hit it. We just meshed very well. We were really good at assigning each other, like clarifying our roles and being like, this is the type of person I am. Okay. We’re friends. It just worked really well, and we all clicked very well together.

Focus group responses also indicated that meeting face-to-face was an important factor in the development of friendships. Participant E-26 (Predominant) revealed:

I think it was just easier to work with one another when we got that confidence after the forming stage when we met up outside of class to just bring those barriers down and just get to know one another. Actually, getting to know one another. I think after that point it was just very easy to work with one another because we all were friends at that point.

Factors that appeared to limit satisfaction and the development of friendship in groups were the presence of interpersonal conflict and disagreements regarding completing taskwork. Participant B-10 (Predominant) admitted, “It started out really awkward. . . for me, we had a couple communication issues in the group specifically with how teammates spoke to each other.” Similarly, Participant A-4 (Predominant) discussed:

In the beginning, we did have a communication issue and just problems with probably speaking professionally to one another. I think it was just getting to know each other that we needed to kind of get over and figure out.

Overall, friendship was critical to team satisfaction. Heterogeneous teams reported the most friendships whereas predominant-style groups described the fewest. This aligned with satisfaction data from the RSS. In addition, the presence of interpersonal conflict, especially related to ineffective communication, appeared to have a detrimental impact on the development of team and individual satisfaction. Conflict related to taskwork was also detrimental, but teams able to communicate effectively and build friendships were able to overcome this and progress more easily to advanced stages of group development.

Psychological safety

A disconnect emerged between participants’ reported perceptions of psychological safety on the TEQ and opinions voiced during the focus groups. For example, Participant A-6 (Homogeneous) stated, “Personally, I don’t like to show people what I feel, how I’m going through things, so I was always showing them that, yes, we can do this. I was super positive about everything.” Another participant indicated they felt safe communicating with the rest of their team but didn’t believe other members experienced the same:

I personally don’t really have an issue facing the problem head on. If I didn’t like an idea, I didn’t necessarily shoot it down, but I kind of found a way to be like, ‘I don’t think we should do that,’ whereas I don’t think some of them were as openly expressing their true thoughts. Later on, if one of them—like I said, we had really varied levels of trust, I think. Later on, if they were just working with me on something, they might mention to me like, ‘Hey, I don’t know if I like her idea.’ Then I would kind of voice it for them because I just think that some of us was maybe didn’t trust that it was going to be a respected opinion, whereas I was like, I can kind of find a way to say it nicely (Participant C-18, Homogenous).

Some participants reported higher levels of trust during the focus groups, but did not directly address psychological safety, instead discussing trust related to member roles, accountability, responsiveness, and work distribution, which are all associated with task cohesion and group potency. This is best illustrated by the following quote:

I would say that I could trust them pretty well and take risks, some more than others. There was one particular team member that would do—pull a lot of the weight for our group, like editing our team video or being the first to initiate conversation in our group chat to make sure that everyone was doing their work. Some more than others. Some were just—took a while to respond or something like that, but some were just quick on their feet at responding. Yeah. I think for me, it was a little different. Although we communicated about what we were going to do in the beginning maybe, we kind of just did it very individually and just trusted each other that we would make a decision (Participant A-4, Predominant).

Although participants were asked about risk taking, safety, and vulnerability during the focus groups, they responded by discussing levels of trust related to task accomplishment. The motivation of achieving grades was often mentioned together with feelings of trust. Analysis also indicated that students experienced a great deal of trust and support from the primary course instructor. Participant A-5 (Heterogeneous) stated, “I think she was really supportive, especially when we were going through our team conflicts,” adding, “I felt really supported throughout the whole project with her.” Participant A-1 (Homogeneous) indicated similar feelings:

It made us feel that no matter what was going on, that there was a way to fix it because she—she knew what we were doing. She knew how to approach different things that we were still learning how to approach. No matter what, it was nice to have that confidence behind us, even if we didn’t have that confidence ourselves.

The presence of a supportive instructor that was involved in group processes and the repeated mentions of easy access to this professor suggests that students were able to experience psychological safety without applying the construct in their teams. Consequently, when students reflected on issues related to trust during the focus group, the most important concerns included the work being completed in a manner congruent with each participant’s expectations and the overall responsiveness of their teammates. Overall, psychological safety between team members did not appear to be as important to participants as issues related to satisfaction and group potency. This finding aligns with quantitative results indicating that perceptions of group potency and higher stages of group development, along with high scores in questions related to satisfaction, communication, planning, and task completion, were more significantly related to team learning behavior than psychological safety.

Stages of group development

Focus group responses indicated that heterogeneous groups may have moved through the stages of group development more quickly than homogeneous and predominant-style groups (Figure 3). Additionally, quantitative data suggested that satisfaction was tied to quicker progression through the stages of group development. Focus groups supported this finding and suggested that satisfaction was influenced primarily by friendship and reduced conflict. Participant E-27 (Heterogeneous) said, “. . .we were able to get things done faster because we didn’t really have many conflicts to resolve.” Similarly, Participant D-20 (Heterogeneous) indicated:

. . . there was just a mutual understanding. We all got each other really well. We communicated very well with each other and overall, we were just very efficient. We all just fed off each other and just built each other up. We all just melded really well and meshed in, just smooth sailing, so it was really good.

These excerpts highlight the advantage heterogenous teams had in that they could spend more time getting work done and less time debating how to get the work done. This allowed for a safer environment where participants could form friendships that ultimately made them more comfortable engaging in behaviors associated with higher stages of group development. In contrast, teams who engaged in early conflict made less progress at time 1. Participant D-24 (Predominant) described one team member wanting to complete tasks and assignments immediately after receiving them, while all other team members planned to wait until closer to the due date.

Figure 3.

Stages of group development scores at time 1 and time 2.

Participant D-19 (Homogeneous) explained a different scenario, stating,

It created a lot of conflict because one of the girls especially on our team had a hard time getting to it and we were like, everybody else was wanting to try to get it done and so it did create conflict for most of it.

All group-types reported reduced conflict at time 2 based on responses on the TEQ. As conflict reduced, Stages 3 and 4 behaviors increased in frequency. Homogenous groups reported significant conflict at time 1; however, once they resolved this conflict, they were able to form friendships which improved satisfaction. Focus groups indicated that participating in social activity and building friendships was central to overcoming early conflict:

That [the social event] definitely was an icebreaker for my group just to kind of see each other’s personalities outside of the project, really helped kind of strengthen those [interpersonal relationships]. Three of us are actually taking a leadership class together next semester, and we wouldn’t have done that if we didn’t have that strong interpersonal relationship (Participant C-13, Homogeneous).

Despite the fact that teams were able to overcome conflict, heterogeneous groups that reported limited conflict at time 1 appeared to perceive greater organization in their groups, better communication and efficiency, and greater satisfaction. Participant E-27 (Heterogeneous) confirmed:

My team was all on the same page too. We didn’t really have any issues. We all agreed that we would submit at least two days before so we would have it. We were doing it individually. We would have all of our parts done before then and then review it as a team before we submitted it. If we were working on it together, we would all meet up, and one person would type while we all discussed. I would say our group got along really well too. We were just laid back and had fun with the project because we figure we’re going be together anyway we might as well make it fun. We would meet at my group member’s house and play games and then also do the project, so it was just cool dynamic.

In conclusion, focus group analysis revealed four primary themes. First, grouping variables other than experiential learning style are more proximal and significant in impacting team learning behavior, psychological safety, satisfaction, potency, and stages of group development. Second, individuals’ perception of friendship was the most important attribute of group satisfaction, which was most highly correlated to team learning behavior at time 2. Third, psychological safety was not as important as other variables later in team development due to the presence of support structures provided by the instructor. Consequently, students perceived behaviors related to team potency and satisfaction as far more important to feelings of trust in their teammates. Finally, teams that experienced less conflict, whether constructive or interpersonal, appeared to progress through the stages of group development initially faster than groups with more conflict which corresponded with increased levels of team satisfaction. Although conflict-heavy groups did catch up to the groups without conflict, homogeneous and predominant-style groups scored lower than heterogeneous groups across stages of group development, psychological safety, potency, team learning behavior, and satisfaction. This suggests that the presence of conflict early may have significant and lasting effects on small student groups in undergraduate education settings.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to determine if small student groups organized by ELT learning styles as defined by the KLSI 3.2 were more effective in homogenous, heterogenous, or predominant-style configurations in an undergraduate class using experiential learning to teach teamwork skills. Some limitations of the study should be considered. First, the small sample size of 28 participants and 6 groups limits the power of the statistical analysis. Second, although students were encouraged to speak openly and honestly during the focus groups as a reflective learning exercise, it is possible that the presence of other classmates, even those from outside their assigned teams, inhibited responses. Third, TEQ data were collected at approximately weeks 7 and 14 of the semester. Collecting the initial data closer to the forming of the teams may have yielded more significant changes from time 1 to time 2. Finally, while it should be noted that there are varying viewpoints regarding the scientific evidence supporting learning styles (Kirschner, 2017; Pashler et al., 2008; Simmonds, 2014), our purpose was not to test learning styles themselves. Learning styles were only used to identify personal characteristics of students to develop homogenous and heterogenous groups. Given our findings, and the contradicting literature, future researchers should use caution when using learning styles as a group composition variable in small group research.

Despite limitations, the findings of our research contribute to the body of knowledge on small group research. The literature suggests that several variables are critical to team learning outcomes, including psychological safety, satisfaction, potency, team learning behaviors, and progression through the stages of group development (Decuyper et al., 2010; Hall, 2007; Raes et al., 2015; Van den Bossche et al., 2006; Wheelan, 2005). We analyzed these variables using quantitative assessments and qualitative focus groups to assess team learning outcomes. The data suggest that heterogeneous groups experienced more favorable team learning outcomes compared to homogeneous or predominant-style groups, but that ELT learning styles may not be the most significant team composition variable.

Previous research on grouping by learning styles suggests that students must be purposefully instructed on how individual learning preferences impact group processes (Kyprianidou et al., 2012). Students in this study were only administered the assessment and did not receive explicit instruction or engage in reflection on the impact of learning styles on group processes. Consequently, students were not aware of how they were grouped, and drew their own conclusions regarding the similarity of their teammates. The findings from the focus groups revealed that heterogeneous teams with higher levels of satisfaction viewed their teams as similar in how they approached their group project, and that similarity was described as an advantage. However, homogenous and predominant-style groups reported differences in how they approached work and these differences generally created conflict, reduced satisfaction, and caused students to feel that their groups were more diverse. Although the results might indicate that the heterogeneous groups as operationalized in this study reported greater team learning outcomes, it is important to consider that these teams perceived themselves as being similar, and in fact the teams that felt more alike reported higher scores across all team learning variables. Therefore, conclusions about small student group composition based on experiential learning styles should be approached with caution in this study.

Several other findings in this study have implications for small group research in higher education. One is the importance of satisfaction and the magnitude of the relationship between satisfaction, stages of group development, group potency, and team learning behavior. Previous research on social cohesion indicated that it is not a significant predictor of team learning behavior (Van den Bossche et al., 2006). However, in this study, the presence of friendship between team members, a key indicator of social cohesion, was found to be significantly related to overall satisfaction. Satisfaction was significantly correlated with Stages 3 and 4 of group development at time 2 and also significantly correlated to group potency, and team learning behavior. Qualitative data from the focus groups converged with quantitative data and demonstrated the direction of this relationship, providing evidence that friendship was a prerequisite for teams to feel more group potency, be more comfortable engaging in team learning behavior, and progress more quickly to higher stages of group development. Previous research on friendship in university settings suggests that friends help students acclimate to their environment, provide a sense of belonging, emotional support, real-life assistance, serve as role models, and offer advice regarding appropriate behavior across contexts (Buote et al., 2007). In addition, friends can be a source of fun that can reduce the negative impact of stressors students experience in their education (Buote et al., 2007). Given that many students in this course were experiencing a great deal of ambiguity and never had a significant portion of their final course grade determined by team performance, it appears that perceiving friendship in their group allowed them to feel safer and to have overall greater satisfaction that drove team learning behavior.

Also noteworthy in this study is the lack of strong positive correlation between psychological safety and team learning behavior at time 2. Previous research by Raes et al., (2015) supported literature that found psychological safety and group potency were integral to increased engagement and learning behavior in teams. The results from our study support the finding regarding group potency but are less clear regarding the idea that psychological safety is important to the perception of positive team learning outcomes. One possible explanation for this phenomenon is the structure of the class in an educational context where the study took place. London and Sessa (2007) suggested that trained professionals can intervene to help teams plan and accomplish their goals and that this support could potentially replace the need for teams to experience psychological safety. Here, the qualitative component of the convergent mixed methods design revealed missing information that was undetected by the quantitative analysis. The focus groups provided evidence that students did feel supported and safe because of the level of guidance delivered by the instructor, suggesting that in academic environments with active and involved faculty, psychological safety amongst teammates is not as important a variable for effective team learning to take place.

Of great interest in this study was the speed and efficiency that groups would progress through the stages of group development (Raes et al., 2015; Wheelan, 2005). Edmondson (1999) suggested that teams will only move through these phases with great interpersonal risk-taking that is only possible in situations with high psychological safety. Teams who do not perceive psychological safety will be less likely to ask questions or ask for assistance, and this lack of communication can inhibit the development of team learning behaviors (Edmondson 2004; Kayes et al., 2005; Van den Bossche et al., 2006). Specifically, it has been thought that teams must be able to engage in constructive conflict in order to experience the best team learning outcomes and that this behavior is only present in higher stages of group development (Dechant et al., 1993). However, our findings suggest that constructive conflict was not perceived as beneficial to the growth of teams through the stages of group development. The lack of conflict in Stage 1, as measured by individual items in the TEQ, was positively correlated with Stage 4 behaviors at time 1 (r = .34) and significantly positively correlated (p < .01) at time 2 (r = .59), suggesting that students perceived conflict as a negative outcome, despite learning about its importance to group development in class. The qualitative data from focus groups provided a deeper understanding of this finding and suggested that anything more than minimal conflict between group members was associated with lower satisfaction. This finding was further supported by the lower satisfaction scores from homogeneous and predominant-style groups compared to heterogeneous teams who did not experience conflict. Predominant-style groups experienced the greatest conflict and saw satisfaction scores decline from time 1 to time 2.

One explanation for these findings is that groups did not develop the psychological safety necessary to engage in constructive conflict until they had become friends, at which point they viewed disagreements less negatively, and therefore, did not report or perceive their dialog as conflict. However, intragroup disagreements were more uncomfortable for teams with lower satisfaction, and students relied on the instructor in many cases to resolve these conflicts and guide the team forward. Hall (2007) and Wheelan (2005) suggested that group discussions with team leaders about the group phases can facilitate teams to higher stages of group development without the need for spontaneous constructive conflict. This further supports the argument regarding academic structures that may be in place in classroom settings that change how team learning behaviors develop. In this study, clear structures existed providing guidance through the stages of group development and psychological support from the instructor. Consequently, the single most important variable to the development of team learning behavior was satisfaction, which was driven primarily by feelings of friendship between students and an absence of conflict. When conflict was present without friendship, groups continued to develop with support from the instructor.

Implications from this study suggest that different mechanisms exist in education settings that significantly influence team learning outcomes. Specific instruction on relevant topics that encourage teams to progress through the stages of group development are important to consider when attempting to accelerate teams’ engagement in sharing, co-construction, and constructive conflict (Kayes et al., 2005; Kyprianidou et al., 2012; Van den Bossche et al., 2006; Wheelan, 2005). In addition, because attentive faculty that provide this instruction can mitigate the need for psychological safety at the team level, other factors may be more important to consider in facilitating the most effective team learning experience. Compositional factors, such as personality, conflict style, and demographic diversity, may be more important for team learning outcomes and progression through the stages of group development. Moreover, these compositional factors play a larger role in the development of friendships and satisfaction. For example, in this study, groups that appeared to spend more time interacting face-to-face seemed to have better team learning outcomes and higher satisfaction, even with projects that were more difficult or required greater interdependence, because they developed stronger interpersonal relationships. The most important implication presented here is that despite worries regarding groupthink, students in educational institutions may learn more effectively in groups where they are able to form bonds of friendship with their teammates and this should be considered in any group facilitation at the undergraduate level.

Further research should explore the relationship between friendship among group members and team learning outcomes in different education contexts, especially as it relates to progression through the stages of group development. Another important area for small group researchers to explore is how faculty support in small group environments moderates the need for individual and group level psychological safety. In addition, further research should consider the impact experiential learning style has on team learning outcomes when students are purposefully instructed about how they have been grouped and the impact learning styles can have on group processes.

Footnotes

Appendix

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Laura L. Greenhaw

Author Biographies

Jonathan Orsini is a PhD Candidate in Agricultural Education and Communication specializing in Leadership Development at the University of Florida, USA. His research interests including mentoring, teamwork, leadership identity development, and higher education.

Laura L. Greenhaw is Assistant Professor of Agricultural Leadership in the Department of Agricultural Education and Communication at the University of Florida, USA. Her research interests include exploring social capital outcomes of leadership development and education, and investigating effective leadership education pedagogy in the context of agriculture and natural resources.

Bradley M. Coleman is a doctoral student in the Department of Agricultural Education and Communication at the University of Florida, USA, specializing in agricultural teacher education. His research interests include studying experiential learning in secondary and post-secondary school settings.

Whitney A. Stone is a doctoral student at the University of Florida, USA, studying Agricultural Communication in the Agricultural Education and Communication Department.

J.C. Bunch is Associate Professor of Agricultural Education at the University Florida, USA, in the Department of Agricultural Education and Communication. Dr. Bunch’s research focuses on teaching and learning. Specifically, he is interested in examining pedagogy practices, student learning outcomes, and curriculum/program development among professional educators.

References

Anderson

C. M.

Martin

M. M.

Riddle

B. L.

(2001). Small group relational satisfaction scale: Development, reliability and validity. Communication Studies, 52(3), 220–233. http://doi.org/10.1080/10510970109388555

Bandura

(1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122

Bell

S. T.

Villado

A. J.

Lukasik

M. A.

Belau

Briggs

A. L.

(2011). Getting specific about demographic diversity variable and team performance relationships: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 37(3), 709–743. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310365001

Bravo

Catalán

Pina

J. M.

(2019). Analyzing teamwork in higher education: An empirical study on the antecedents and consequences of team cohesiveness. Studies in Higher Education, 44(7), 1153–1165. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1420049

Buote

V. M.

Pancer

S. M.

Pratt

M. W.

Adams

Birnie-Lefcovitch

Polivy

Wintre

M. G.

(2007). The importance of friends: Friendship and adjustment among 1st-year university students. Journal of Adolescent Research, 22(6), 665–689. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558407306344

Burdett

Hastie

(2009). Predicting satisfaction with group work assignments. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 6(1), 7.

Burlingame

McClendon

D. T.

Yang

(2019). Cohesion in group therapy. In Norcross

Lambert

(Eds.), Psychotherapy relationships that work; Volume 1: Evidence based therapist contributions (3rd ed., pp. 205–244). Oxford University Press.

Chen

Donahue

L. M.

Klimoski

R. J.

(2004). Training undergraduates to work in organizational teams. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(1), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2004.12436817

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.

10.

Cohen

S. G.

Bailey

D. E.

(1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239–290. http://doi.org/10.1177/014920639702300303

11.

Creswell

(2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Sage.

12.

Creswell

J. W.

Clark

V. L. P.

(2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage.

13.

De Dreu

C. K.

Weingart

L. R.

(2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741

14.

Dechant

Marsick

V. J.

Kasl

(1993). Towards a model of team learning. Studies in Continuing Education, 15(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037930150101

15.

Decuyper

Dochy

Van den Bossche

(2010). Grasping the dynamic complexity of team learning: An integrative model for effective team learning in organizations. Educational Research Review, 5(2), 111–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.02.002

16.

Dillenbourg

(1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In Dillenbourg

(Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Elsevier.

17.

Doolittle

P. E.

Camp

W. G.

(1999). Constructivism: The career and technical education perspective. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 16(1), 23–46.

18.

Dunne

Rawlins

(2000). Bridging the gap between industry and higher education: Training academics to promote student teamwork. Innovations in Education and Training International, 37(4), 361–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/135580000750052973

19.

Edmondson

(1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2666999

20.

Edmondson

A. C.

(2004). Learning from mistakes is easier said than done: Group and organizational influences on the detection and correction of human error. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(1), 66–90. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0021886304263849

21.

Edmondson

A. C.

Bohmer

R. M.

Pisano

G. P.

(2001). Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4), 685–716. https://doi.org/10.2307%2F3094828

22.

Festinger

(1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57(5), 271–282. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0056932

23.

Gersick

C. J. G.

(1991). Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review 16(1), 10–36. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1991.4278988

24.

Gully

S. M.

Incalcaterra

K. A.

Johi

Beaubien

J. M.

(2002). A meta-analysis of team efficacy, potency and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 819–832. https://doi.org10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.819

25.

Hall

(1996). Training in teamwork for students of library and information studies. Education for Information, 14(1), 19–29. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-1991-14103

26.

Hall

(2007). Dynamic interactions between two models of team development and learning: Implications for performance and human resource managers. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 18, 421–430. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1211

27.

Herreid

C. F.

(1998). Why isn’t cooperative learning used to teach science? BioScience, 48(7), 553–559. https://doi.org/10.2307/1313317

28.

Horwitz

S. K.

Horwitz

I. B.

(2007). The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic review of team demography. Journal of Management, 33(6), 987–1015. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0149206307308587

29.

Hulme

(1996). Use of decision models in a diverse learning environment. The CAL POLY Pomona Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 9, 57–64.

30.

Jackson

C. J.

(2002). Predicting team performance from a learning process model. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(1), 6–13. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940210415898

31.

Jules

(2007). Diversity of member composition and team learning in organizations [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Case Western Reserve University.

32.

Kayes

A. B.

Kayes

D. C.

Kolb

D. A.

(2005). Experiential learning in teams. Simulation & Gaming, 36(3), 330–354. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1046878105279012

33.

Kirschner

P. A.

(2017). Stop propagating the learning styles myth. Computers & Education, 106, 166–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.006

34.

Koeslag-Kreunen

Van den Bossche

Hoven

Van der Klink

Gijselaers

(2018). When leadership powers team learning: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 49(4), 475–513. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1046496418764824

35.

Kolb

D. A.

(2012). Kolb’s learning styles. In Seel

N. M.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning. Springer.

36.

Kolb

A. Y.

Kolb

D. A.

(2009). Experiential learning theory: A dynamic, holistic approach to management learning, education and development. In Armstrong

S. J.

Fukami

(Eds.), Handbook of management learning, education and development (pp. 42–68).

37.

Kolb

D. A.

(1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.

38.

Kolb

D. A.

(2013). The Kolb learning style inventory. Hay Resources Direct.

39.

Kolb

D. A.

(2015). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.). Pearson Education.

40.

Koles

P. G.

Stolfi

Borges

N. J.

Nelson

Parmelee

D. X.

(2010). The impact of team-based learning on medical students’ academic performance. Academic Medicine, 85(11), 1739–1745. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181f52bed

41.

Kyprianidou

Demetriadis

Tsiatsos

Pombortsis

(2012). Group formation based on learning styles: Can it improve students’ teamwork? Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(1), 83–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9215-4

42.

Lee

H. J.

Kim

Byun

(2017). Are high achievers successful in collaborative learning? An explorative study of college students’ learning approaches in team project-based learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(5), 418–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2015.1105754

43.

Lingham

(2004). Developing a measure for conversational learning spaces in teams. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Case Western Reserve University.

44.

Lizzio

Wilson

Simons

(2002). University students’ perceptions of the learning environment and academic outcomes: Implications for theory and practice. Studies in Higher Education, 27, 27–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070120099359

45.

London

Sessa

V. I.

(2007). The development of group interaction patterns: How groups become adaptive, generative, and transformative learners. Human Resource Development Review, 6, 353–376. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484307307549

46.

Mathieu

J. E.

Tannenbaum

S. I.

Donsbach

J. S.

Alliger

G. M.

(2014). A review and integration of team composition models: Moving toward a dynamic and temporal framework. Journal of Management, 40(1), 130–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313503014

47.

McCubbins

O. P.

(2016). Team-based learning in an undergraduate capstone course: Examining the effectiveness of a learner-centered instructional method for farm management and operation students. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Iowa State University.

48.

Michaelsen

L. K.

Knight

A. B.

Fink

L. D.

(Eds.). (2004). Team-based learning: A transformative use of small groups in college teaching. Stylus.

49.

Moseholm

Fetters

M. D.

(2017). Conceptual models to guide integration during analysis in convergent mixed methods studies. Methodological Innovations, 10(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2059799117703118

50.

Pashler

McDaniel

Rohrer

Bjork

(2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1539-6053.2009.01038.x

51.

Raes

Kyndt

Decuyper

Van den Bossche

Dochy

(2015). An exploratory study of group development and team learning. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 26(1), 5–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21201

52.

Ravitch

S. M.

Carl

N. M.

(2015). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological. Sage.

53.

Richardson

J. T.

(2011). Eta squared and partial eta squared as measures of effect size in educational research. Educational Research Review, 6(2), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.12.001

54.

Sandmire

D. A.

Boyce

P. F.

(2004). Pairing of opposite learning styles among allied health students: Effects on collaborative performance. Journal of Allied Health, 33(2), 156–163.

55.

Sbea

G. P.

Guzzo

R. A.

(1987). Group effectiveness: What really matters? Sloan Management Review, 28(3), 25–31.

56.

Schlichter

(1997). Lecture 2000: More than a course across wires. Teleconference: The Business Communications Magazine, 16(6), 18–21.

57.

Scott-Ladd

Chan

C. C.

(2008). Using action research to teach students to manage team learning and improve teamwork satisfaction. Active Learning in Higher Education, 9(3), 231–248. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1469787408095848

58.

Simmonds

(2014) How neuroscience is affecting education: Report of teacher and parent surveys. Wellcome Trust. https://wellcome.org/sites/default/files/wtp055240.pdf

59.

Tuckman

B. W.

Jensen

M. A. C.

(1977). Stages of small group development revisited. Group and Organizational Studies, 2(4): 419–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/105960117700200404

60.

Van den Bossche

Gijselaers

W. H.

Segers

Kirschner

P. A.

(2006). Social and cognitive factors driving teamwork in collaborative learning environments: Team learning beliefs and behaviors. Small Group Research, 37(5), 490–521. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1046496406292938

61.

Wheelan

S. A.

(2005). Group processes: A developmental perspective (2nd ed.). Pearson.

62.

Wheelan

S. A.

(2009). Group size, group development, and group productivity. Small Group Research, 40(2), 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1046496408328703

63.

Wheelan

S. A.

Davidson

Tilin

(2003). Group development across time: Reality or illusion? Small Group Research, 34(2), 223–245. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1046496403251608

64.

Wilson

J. M.

Goodman

P. S.

Cronin

M. A.

(2007). Group learning. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1041–1059. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.26585724

65.

Wolfe

(1976). Learning styles rewarded in a complex simulation with implications for business policy and organization behavior research [paper presentation]. Proceedings of the Academy of Management 1, 164–168.

66.

Wyss-Flamm

E. D.

(2003). Conversational learning and psychological safety in multicultural teams [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Case Western Reserve University. https://etd.ohiolink.edu

67.

Yin

R. K.

(2002). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage.