Facets of Team Equity: A Scoping Review

Abstract

This article presents the findings of a scoping review looking at conceptualizations of team equity in academic literature between 2017 and 2021. A search and filter process produced a set of 42 publications containing discussion of equity or equality at the team level. A qualitative thematic analysis was carried out on the data resulting in a set of seven themes characterized as facets of team equity: alignment, dialogism, heterophily, participation, power, ownership, and risk. Each facet is presented and illustrated with excerpts from the scoping review data followed by implications for the operationalization of equity at the team level. This analysis sheds light on the multi-dimensionality of equity in a team space, providing context for discussions about the difficulty of using simple quantitative measures for such a complex phenomenon. We hope the facets help researchers and practitioners use and operationalize the concept in ongoing efforts to combat historically-grounded injustices.

Keywords

equity equality teamwork scoping review

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adams

J. S.

(1963). Towards an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(5), 422–436. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040968

Akan

O. H.

Allen

R. S.

White

C. S.

(2009). Equity sensitivity and organizational citizenship behavior in a team environment. Small Group Research, 40(1), 94–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496408326575

**Andrade

M. S.

Kakegawa

Johnson

(2020). The use of peer review in student teams: An impetus to improved performance? Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 20(14), 32–48. https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v20i14.3848

*Andrade

M. S.

Miller

R. M.

(2020). Virtual online teams: The development of cross-cutting skills for business students. In Lane

H. C.

Zvacek

Uhomoibhi

(Eds.), CSEDU 2020 - Proceedings of the 12th international conference on computer supported education (Vol. 1, pp. 442–449). Scitepress. https://doi.org/10.5220/0009446504420449

Armstead

Bierman

Bradshaw

Martin

Wright

(2016). Groups vs. Teams: Which one are you leading? Nurse Leader, 14(3), 179–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mnl.2016.03.006

Baxter

Glendinning

Clarke

(2008). Making informed choices in social care: The importance of accessible information. Health & Social Care in the Community, 16(2), 197–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2524.2007.00742.x

Belk

R. W.

(1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168. https://doi.org/10.1086/209154

*Berger

Wirtz

Goldenstein

Morrison

Briody

(2018). Grassroots teams for academic departments: A new way to understand culture and change [Conference session]. 2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (pp. 1–8). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2018.8658745

*Boelens

De Wever

(2017). Collaborating on a shared document: Vocational and technical students’ approaches and experiences [Conference session]. In Mesquita

Peres

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on E-Learning, ECEL 2017 (pp. 56–64). Academic Conferences and Publishing International Ltd. https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8552891/file/8552893

10.

Bourdieu

(1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge University Press.

11.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

12.

Braun

Clarke

(2012). Thematic analysis. In Cooper

Camic

P. M.

Long

D. L.

Panter

A. T.

Rindskopf

Sher

K. J.

(Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 2. Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 57–71). American Psychological Association.

13.

*Brookes

D. T.

Yang

Nainabasti

(2021). Social positioning in small group interactions in an investigative science learning environment physics class. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 17(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.17.010103

14.

Burt

B. A.

Stone

Perkins

Polk

Ramirez

Rosado

(2022). Team culture of community: Cultural practices for scientific team cohesion and productivity. Small Group Research, 53(6), 855–890. https://doi.org/10.1177/10464964221097699

15.

*Campbell

K. A.

Fittipaldi

Frie

Guthrie

P. F.

(2021). Understanding faculty perspectives of supports and barriers to interprofessional collaboration within a clinical scholars program: A qualitative study. Nurse Education in Practice, 54, 541–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2021.103118

16.

**Cegarra-Navarro

J. G.

Ruiz

F. J. A.

Martínez-Caro

Garcia-Perez

(2021). Turning heterogeneity into improved research outputs in international R&D teams. Journal of Business Research, 128, 770–778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.05.023

17.

**Channon

S. B.

Davis

R. C.

Goode

N. T.

May

S. A.

(2017). What makes a ‘good group’? Exploring the characteristics and performance of undergraduate student groups. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 22(1), 17–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-016-9680-y

18.

Chen

J. M.

Hamilton

D. L.

(2015). Understanding diversity: The importance of social acceptance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(4), 586–598. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215573495

19.

Cohen

E. G.

Lotan

R. A.

(1995). Producing equal-status interaction in the heterogeneous classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032001099

20.

Colquhoun

H. L.

Levac

O’Brien

K. K.

Straus

Tricco

A. C.

Perrier

Kastner

Moher

(2014). Scoping reviews: Time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(12), 1291–1294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013

21.

*Cooney

Darcy

(2020). It was fun’: Exploring the pedagogical value of collaborative educational games. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 17(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.17.3.4

22.

Csikszentmihalyi

Rochberg-Halton

(1981). The meaning of things: Domestic symbols and the self. Cambridge University Press.

23.

DeChurch

L. A.

Mesmer-Magnus

J. R.

Doty

(2013). Moving beyond relationship and task conflict: Toward a process-state perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(4), 559–578. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032896

24.

De Dreu

C. K. W.

(2006). When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management, 32(1), 83–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305277795

25.

Deitrick

Shapiro

R. B.

Gravel

(2016). How do we assess equity in programming pairs? In Looi

C. K.

Polman

J. L.

Cress

Reimann

(Eds.), Transforming learning, empowering learners: The international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS) (pp. 370–377). International Society of the Learning Sciences. https://repository.isls.org/bitstream/1/138/1/49.pdf

26.

Dowell

N. M. M.

Nixon

T. M.

Graesser

A. C.

(2019). Group communication analysis: A computational linguistics approach for detecting sociocognitive roles in multiparty interactions. Behavior Research Methods, 51(3), 1007–1041. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1102-z

27.

Edmondson

(1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

28.

Emich

K. J.

Kumar

Norder

Pandey

(2020). Mapping 50 years of small group research through Small Group Research. Small Group Research, 51(6), 659–699. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496420934541

29.

Esmonde

(2009). Mathematics learning in groups: Analyzing equity in two cooperative activity structures. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(2), 247–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400902797958

30.

*Fathallah

(2021). Pedagogies for democratic participation in design studios: Towards more inclusive group work among interior design students. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 40(4), 736–747. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12385

31.

*Ferdous

Karim

(2019). Working in groups outside the classroom: Affective challenges and probable solutions. International Journal of Instruction, 12(3), 341–358. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12321a

32.

Fragale

A. R.

(2006). The power of powerless speech: The effects of speech style and task interdependence on status conferral. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101(2), 243–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.01.004

33.

Freire

(Ed.). (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary ed.). Bloomsbury Academic.

34.

*Froldova

(2017). Sociability and its impact on successful team work in an online environment. Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 5(2), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1515/jolace-2017-0018

35.

Fusaroli

Tylén

(2016). Investigating conversational dynamics: Interactive alignment, interpersonal synergy, and collective task performance. Cognitive Science, 40(1), 145–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12251

36.

Galloway

M. K.

Ishimaru

A. M.

(2020). Leading equity teams: The role of formal leaders in building organizational capacity for equity. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 25(2), 107–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2019.1699413

37.

Garrod

Pickering

M. J.

(2004). Why is conversation so easy? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(1), 8–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.10.016

38.

*Giordano

A. P.

Patient

Passos

A. M.

Sguera

(2020). Antecedents and consequences of collective psychological ownership: The validation of a conceptual model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(1), 32–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2418

39.

Grimshaw

(2010). A knowledge synthesis chapter. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (pp. 1–56). https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/knowledge_synthesis_chapter_e.pdf

40.

Hackman

J. R.

(2002). Why teams don’t work. In Tindale

R. S.

Heath

Edwards

Posavac

E. J.

Bryant

F. B.

Suarez-Balcazar

Henderson-King

Myers

(Eds.), Theory and research on small groups (pp. 245–267). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47144-2_12

41.

Hackman

J. R.

Morris

C. G.

(1975). Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 8(1), 45–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60248-8

42.

**Hadwin

A. F.

Bakhtiar

Miller

(2018). Challenges in online collaboration: Effects of scripting shared task perceptions. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(3), 301–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-018-9279-9

43.

*Hampton

D. C.

El-Mallakh

(2017). Opinions of online nursing students related to working in groups. Journal of Nursing Education, 56(10), 611–616. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20170918-06

44.

Henderson

T. S.

(2024). Understanding the relationship between idea contributions and idea enactments in student design teams: A social network analysis approach. Journal of Engineering Education, 113(2), 225–250. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20582

45.

Hirshfield

L. J.

(2018). Equal but not equitable: Self-reported data obscures gendered differences in project teams. IEEE Transactions on Education, 61(4), 305–311. https://doi.org/10.1109/te.2018.2820646

46.

Hirvonen

(2016). Positioning theory and small-group interaction: Social and task positioning in the context of joint decision-making. Sage Open, 6(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016655584

47.

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/10.1177/0149206307308587

48.

*Hu

Broome

(2019). Interprofessional collaborative team development in China: A grounded theory study. Journal of Nursing Management, 27(6), 1075–1083. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12775

49.

Ilgen

D. R.

Hollenbeck

J. R.

Johnson

Jundt

(2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250

50.

*Jansson

A. A.

Cort

(2020). Assessment of openness as a dynamic team skill in order to counteract free-riding [Conference session]. 2020 IEEE frontiers in education conference (FIE) (pp. 886–891). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE44824.2020.9274004

51.

Kerr

N. L.

Bruun

S. E.

(1981). Ringelmann revisited: Alternative explanations for the social loafing effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7(2), 224–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616728172007

52.

*Kholed

S. N. S.

Hassan

N. M.

Ma’on

S. N.

Hamid

N. Z. A.

(2017). Teamwork and collaboration in healthcare: Elements of inter-professional teamwork. Advanced Science Letters, 23(11), 10834–10837. https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2017.10164

53.

*Koolwijk

J. S. J.

van Oel

C. J.

Gaviria Moreno

J. C.

(2020). No-blame culture and the effectiveness of project-based design teams in the construction industry: The mediating role of teamwork. Journal of Management in Engineering, 36(4), 04020033. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000796

54.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

Chao

G. T.

(2018). Unpacking team process dynamics and emergent phenomena: Challenges, conceptual advances, and innovative methods. American Psychologist, 73(4), 576–592. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000245

55.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

Klein

K. J.

(2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In Klein

K. J.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). Jossey-Bass/Wiley.

56.

*Lacher

L. L.

Biehl

(2019). Does social sensitivity impact virtual teams? In Hawthorne

E. K.

Pérez-Quiñones

M. A.

(Eds.), SIGCSE 2019 - Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 36–42). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287409

57.

*Lam

(2018). More than a feeling: Applying a data-driven framework in the technical and professional communication team project. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 61(4), 409–427. https://doi.org/10.1109/tpc.2018.2870683

58.

Lawrence

B. S.

Shah

N. P.

(2020). Homophily: Measures and meaning. Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 513–597. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0147

59.

Layder

(1997). Modern social theory: Key debates and new directions. Routledge.

60.

Lim

Klein

K. J.

(2006). Team mental models and team performance: A field study of the effects of team mental model similarity and accuracy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(4), 403–418. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.387

61.

Linell

(2009). Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically. Information Age Publishing.

62.

*Liu

Huang

J. L.

Dickson

M. W.

(2017). Team assessment and selection. In Goldstein

H. W.

Pulakos

E. D.

Passmore

Semedo

(Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of the psychology of recruitment, selection and employee retention (pp. 310–333). Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118972472.ch15

63.

**Logan

T. R.

Michael Malone

(2018). Nurses’ perceptions of teamwork and workplace bullying. Journal of Nursing Management, 26(4), 411–419. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12554

64.

*Loy

Howell

Cooper

(2017). Engineering teams: Supporting diversity in engineering education. In Gray

Thomas

(Eds.), Strategies for increasing diversity in engineering majors and careers (pp. 106–129). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-2212-6.ch006

65.

Mathieu

J. E.

Gallagher

P. T.

Domingo

M. A.

Klock

E. A.

(2019). Embracing complexity: Reviewing the past decade of team effectiveness research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6(1), 17–46. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-015106

66.

*McPherson

Collins

Gallen

A. M.

(2019). Enabling inclusive group work. In Gómez Chova

López Martínez

Candel Torres

(Eds.) Proceedings of the 12th annual international conference of education, research and innovation (ICERI 2019) (pp. 2581–2588). IATED Academy. https://oro.open.ac.uk/68480/3/68480.pdf

67.

*McQuade

Ventura-Medina

Wiggins

Anderson

(2020). Examining self-managed problem-based learning interactions in engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 45(2), 232–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2019.1649366

68.

Meadows

L. A.

Sekaquaptewa

(2013, June 23). The influence of gender stereotypes on role adoption in student teams [Conference presentation]. 2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Atlanta, GA. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2–22602

69.

Miles

E. W.

Hatfield

J. D.

Huseman

R. C.

(1989). The equity sensitivity construct: Potential implications for worker performance. Journal of Management, 15(4), 581–588. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638901500407

70.

Moffat

A. D.

Fowler

Matz

R. L.

JaQuay

(2023, June 25). Approaches to evidencing intra-team equity in student collaborative design decision-making interactions [Conference presentation]. American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference & Exposition, Baltimore, MD. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2–42285

71.

Moffat

A. D.

Fowler

R. R.

Matz

R. L.

Jeffery

M. P.

(2022). Is an effective team an equitable team? Protocol for a scoping review [Conference session]. 2022 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE 2022) (pp. 713–718). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE56618.2022.9962452

72.

*Nieswandt

McEneaney

E. H.

Affolter

(2020). A framework for exploring small group learning in high school science classrooms: The triple problem solving space. Instructional Science, 48(3), 243–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-020-09510-9

73.

Onrubia

Engel

(2009). Strategies for collaborative writing and phases of knowledge construction in CSCL environments. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1256–1265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.008

74.

Onrubia

Engel

(2012). The role of teacher assistance on the effects of a macro-script in collaborative writing tasks. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(1), 161–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-011-9125-9

75.

*Owen

R. L.

Buck

J. A.

(2020). Creating the conditions for reflective team practices: Examining sociocracy as a self-organizing governance model that promotes transformative learning. Reflective Practice, 21(6), 786–802. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2020.1821630

76.

Page

S. E.

(2019). The diversity bonus: How great teams pay off in the knowledge economy. Princeton University Press.

77.

*Patterson

A. D.

(2019). Equity in groupwork: The social process of creating justice in a science classroom. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 14(2), 361–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-019-09918-x

78.

Pearce

C. L.

van Knippenberg

van Ginkel

W. P.

(2023). The trouble with teams. . . and team leadership: Toward a research agenda on the paradoxical nature and reciprocal dynamics of vertical and shared leadership. Academy of Management Collections, 2(3), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.5465/amc.2022.0010

79.

*Pham

M. T.

Rajić

Greig

J. D.

Sargeant

J. M.

Papadopoulos

McEwen

S. A.

(2014). A scoping review of scoping reviews: Advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Research Synthesis Methods, 5(4), 371–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1123

80.

Pham

(2018). An analysis of small group interactions of Vietnamese students under the Bourdieusian theoretical lens. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(2), 359–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1370437

81.

Pierce

J. L.

Kostova

Dirks

K. T.

(2001). Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 298–310. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4378028

82.

**Planas-Lladó

Feliu

Arbat

Pujol

Suñol

J. J.

Castro

Martí

(2021). An analysis of teamwork based on self and peer evaluation in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(2), 191–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1763254

83.

**Quinn

K. N.

Kelley

M. M.

McGill

K. L.

Smith

E. M.

Whipps

Holmes

(2020). Group roles in unstructured labs show inequitable gender divide. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 16(1), 010129. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.16.010129

84.

Reagans

Zuckerman

McEvily

(2004). How to make the team: Social networks vs. demography as criteria for designing effective teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(1), 101–133. https://doi.org/10.2307/4131457

85.

*Reyes

A. F.

Guzmán

Reyes

Á. J. F.

Púa

L. D. C. G.

(2020). Impact of teamwork on academic performance of engineering students. International Journal of Engineering Education, 36(6), 1912–1923. https://www.ijee.ie/contents/c360620.html

86.

Riebe

Girardi

Whitsed

(2016). A systematic literature review of teamwork pedagogy in higher education. Small Group Research, 47(6), 619–664. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496416665221

87.

*Rust

Wessel-Powell

(2022). Positioning self and other: Building equity literacy in collaboration. Literacy, 56(2), 160–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12276

88.

Saavedra

Earley

P. C.

Van Dyne

(1993). Complex interdependence in task-performing groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.78.1.61

89.

*Sachmpazidi

Olmstead

Thompson

A. N.

Henderson

Beach

(2021). Team-based instructional change in undergraduate STEM: Characterizing effective faculty collaboration. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00273-4

90.

Schutz

(1992). Beyond FIRO-B—Three new theory-derived measures—Element B: Behavior, element F: Feelings, element S: Self. Psychological Reports, 70(3), 915–937. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1992.70.3.915

91.

*Sithole

B. M.

(2018). Making group-work work: Ideas for teaching business studies derived from Kagan’s cooperative learning structures. Journal of International Educational Sciences, 22(1-3), 11–18. https://doi.org/10.31901/24566322.2018/22.1-3.1063

92.

Slattery

Hutchison

(2018). Assessing equity in collaborative learning situations: A comparison of methods. In Kay

Luckin

(Eds.), Rethinking learning in the digital age: Making the learning sciences count, 13th international conference of the learning sciences (Vol. 2, pp. 1149–1152). International Society of the Learning Sciences. https://repository.isls.org/bitstream/1/582/1/256.pdf

93.

*Stepanova

Rozhkova

Grishina

(2020). Team building as a method of teaching students and group cohesion. In Au-Yong-Oliveira

Costa

(Eds.), Proceedings of the European conference on research methodology for business and management studies (pp. 276–283). Academic Conferences and Publishing International Ltd. https://doi.org/10.34190/ERM.20.114

94.

Stone

L. D.

Underwood

Hotchkiss

(2012). The relational habitus: Intersubjective processes in learning settings. Human Development, 55(2), 65–91. https://doi.org/10.1159/000337150

95.

*Takai

Esterman

(2019). A review of team effectiveness models and possible instruments for measuring design-team inputs, processes, and outputs. International Journal of Engineering Education, 35(6A), 1684–1697. https://www.ijee.ie/contents/c350619A.html

96.

*Tenenberg

(2019). Factors affecting free riding on teams: Implications for engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 35(6A), 1703–1724. https://www.ijee.ie/contents/c350619A.html

97.

The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2014). Race equity and inclusion action guide: Embracing equity: 7 steps to advance and embed race equity and inclusion within your organization. https://www.aecf.org/resources/race-equity-and-inclusion-action-guide/

98.

*Theobald

E. J.

Eddy

S. L.

Grunspan

D. Z.

Wiggins

B. L.

Crowe

A. J.

(2017). Student perception of group dynamics predicts individual performance: Comfort and equity matter. PLoS One, 12(7), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181336

99.

*Thompson

(2017). Fostering development of teamwork skills in an introductory engineering course [Conference session]. In 2017 IEEE Frontiers in education conference (FIE 2017) (pp. 1–4). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2017.8190551

100.

Tricco

A. C.

Lillie

Zarin

O’Brien

Colquhoun

Kastner

Levac

Sharpe

J. P.

Wilson

Kenny

Warren

Wilson

Stelfox

H. T.

Straus

S. E.

(2016). A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 16(1), 15–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4

101.

Trofimovich

Kennedy

(2014). Interactive alignment between bilingual interlocutors: Evidence from two information-exchange tasks. Bilingualism Language and Cognition, 17(4), 822–836. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728913000801

102.

Van Dyne

Pierce

J. L.

(2004). Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: Three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(4), 439–459. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.249

103.

*Vasquez

E. S.

Dewitt

M. J.

West

Z. J.

Elsass

M. J.

(2020). Impact of team formation approach on teamwork effectiveness and performance in an upper-level undergraduate chemical engineering laboratory course. International Journal of Engineering Education, 36(1B), 491–501.

104.

Zoethout

Wesselink

Runhaar

Mulder

(2017). Using transactivity to understand emergence of team learning. Small Group Research, 48(2), 190–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496417691614

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

1.09 MB