Teamwork satisfaction: Exploring the multilevel interaction of teamwork interest and group extraversion

Abstract

Multilevel modeling is used to examine the impact of teamwork interest and group extraversion on group satisfaction. Participants included 206 undergraduates in 65 groups who were surveyed at the beginning and end of a requisite term-length group project for an upper-division university course. We hypothesized that teamwork interest and both extraversion dispersion and higher mean extraversion would predict satisfaction with the group. Results indicated both teamwork interest and mean extraversion were not a predictor of satisfaction. Contrary to the hypothesis, greater extraversion dispersion and the interaction between teamwork interest and extraversion dispersion predicted less satisfaction. Extraversion dispersion was a better predictor of student satisfaction when individuals were more interested in teamwork. Additionally, extraversion dispersion may be a suppressor variable for teamwork interest. These results have implications for instructors facilitating group work and ensuring students have a positive group work experience.

Keywords

group work interest multilevel modeling personality small-group learning

Teamwork as an active learning tool

Active learning strategies are traditionally defined as “instructional activities involving students in doing things and thinking about what they are doing” (Bonwell and Eison, 1991). More specifically, active learning strategies are student-centered approaches to instruction that promote student empowerment through the use of communication, collaboration, and exploration (Mateev and Milter, 2010). Student-centered approaches to higher education are more hands-off, allowing students to pursue knowledge independent of the instructor, make mistakes, and discover their own skills and abilities. It has been argued that active learning strategies are vital for classroom learning (Bonwell and Eison, 1991), and teamwork is one of the many promoted active learning strategies in the active learning literature (Johnson et al., 2007).

Teamwork is an active learning strategy that is becoming increasingly popular in the classroom (Colbeck et al., 2000; Micari and Drane, 2011). Teamwork is defined as “a work group with a common purpose through which members develop mutual relationships for the achievement of goals/tasks” (Harris and Harris, 1996). For the group to succeed, individuals need to collaborate effectively with each other. Peer collaboration in academic contexts has numerous potential benefits including increased achievement, improved problem solving, increased self-esteem, favorable learning attitudes, and satisfaction (Burdett and Hastie, 2009; Colbeck et al., 2000; Goldfinch and Hughes, 2007; Springer et al., 1999). Teamwork is also seen as critical for today’s workforce (Stevens and Campion, 1994), and employers value teamwork skills from incoming employees of higher education programs (Chen et al., 2004). It is therefore becoming critical that instructors in higher education understand teamwork and the factors that contribute to positive teamwork outcomes.

Student attitudes toward their experiences with active learning strategies, specifically their satisfaction with team projects, are important precursors to learning. The educational literature provides several reasons to use satisfaction as a meaningful outcome variable. First, satisfaction with learning strategy is linked to student motivation (Bonwell and Sutherland, 1996; Martinez-Caro and Campuzano-Bolarin, 2011). Second, increased satisfaction is linked to student engagement and self-perceptions of learning (Brown, 2010; Howell, 2006). Third, instructors are typically interested in fostering a positive learning experience for the student (Bonwell and Sutherland, 1996), with satisfaction serving as a key indicator of a good learning experience. And finally, satisfaction is often used as a criterion for evaluating learning strategies (e.g. Brown, 2010; Cavanaugh, 2011; Kraiger et al., 1993). With this literature as a justification, we will use satisfaction with group work as an outcome variable.

Despite the benefits of teamwork, students exhibit a range of reactions to group projects (Hillyard et al., 2010), indicating the relationship between group work experiences and satisfaction is complex and impacted by different factors within the group experience. Indeed, several studies examining group work satisfaction among students have tested a range of variables. In their mixed-method study on predictors of group work satisfaction, Burdett and Hastie (2009) found individuals were more satisfied with group work when they perceived greater workload equality and experienced valuable learning outcomes. Scott-Ladd and Chan (2008) examined the relationship between skill-development strategies and group work satisfaction among undergraduate students. Their results indicated that when the group engaged in skills such as conflict management and defining group roles and processes, group members were more satisfied with their learning outcomes (Scott-Ladd and Chan, 2008). In Hillyard et al.’s (2010) study on group work experience and satisfaction, they found previous negative experiences were related to lower satisfaction ratings of group work; instructor facilitation and academic preparedness of group members also improved group work satisfaction.

Aside from characteristics of the group work process, group and teams research is increasingly focused on the role individual differences play in determining group outcomes (Humphrey et al., 2011). Research has indicated it may be beneficial to pick members for groups based on desirable individual characteristics such as personality (Colbeck et al., 2000; Humphrey et al., 2011).

In addition to the intended application of this research, the study described in this article extends the individual differences group research by examining the roles of teamwork interest and group extraversion for predicting satisfaction with the group. This study adds innovation and knowledge to the field for several reasons. First, teamwork interest is a potentially critical, yet understudied, variable in the group work literature. To our knowledge, only a handful of studies have examined teamwork interest despite its relationship to individual characteristics and outcomes of interest for group work such as emotional intelligence, team participation, team performance, and team cohesion (Ilarda and Findlay, 2006; Kline, 1999; O’Neill and Kline, 2008). Second, we further examine the role of extraversion composition within a team, which to date has yielded equivocal impact on group outcomes (Bell, 2007). By examining both Kline’s Team Player Inventory (TPI, a measure of teamwork interest) and group extraversion in conjunction, we also contribute to the knowledge of how individual attitudes (specifically teamwork interest) interact with dispositional attributes within the group (specifically extraversion). These two aspects of the group experience are inseparable layers of context that undoubtedly impact one another to create group dynamics and ultimately outcomes (like satisfaction) that are important to educators and their students (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Third, we use a multilevel approach to examine these constructs, thereby determining how the individual’s interest in group work may be influenced by extraversion composition to determine satisfaction outcomes. Multilevel analysis is critical for group work analyses to avoid violating assumptions of statistical independence; previous group work has tended to take either an individual or aggregate analytical approach (MacDonnell et al., 2009; O’Neill and Kline, 2008). In fact, within the applied literature on classroom group work, the majority of the literature relies on data from individual students, and not that aggregated across the groups (Burdett and Hastie, 2009; Hillyard et al., 2010; Scott-Ladd and Chan, 2008). Multilevel analysis permits not only a better statistical analysis but provides better information that ultimately can be used by educators to improve students’ experiences with group work. The results of this study are aimed to help higher education instructors better understand the impact of individual differences on group work satisfaction by examining data in the aggregate (i.e. group) as well as of the individual.

Interest in teamwork

Despite the wide scale attention to teamwork within the industrial and organizational psychology field, team member interest in teamwork is understudied (Kottke, 2008). Filling this void, Kline’s (1999) TPI is designed to measure teamwork interest. Kline (1999) defines teamwork interest as “the degree to which individuals are predisposed to want to work in a team-based environment” (p. 103). Since its inception, the TPI measure of interest in teamwork has been used sparingly; however, studies have indicated TPI predicts several outcomes. In validating the measure, Kline (1999) found the TPI predicted group participation, which is a critical component of group work. Ilarda and Findlay (2006) examined the relationship between emotional intelligence, personality, and TPI scores; results indicated TPI scores were positively correlated with emotional intelligence, extraversion, and agreeableness, all of which are desirable group member characteristics. In a later study, O’Neill and Kline (2008) found differential results; TPI scores were unrelated to personality but were positively related to team performance and team cohesion. MacDonnell et al. (2009) also found TPI linked to cohesion, although their results failed to reach statistical significance. Finally, Kottke (2008) examined the relationship between TPI scores and teamwork knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs), finding those who were more interested in teamwork had fewer teamwork KSAs to manage teamwork successfully.

Despite its underuse in the literature, the cited results indicate TPI is a potentially meaningful predictor of meaningful outcomes associated with group work, including positive individual characteristics such as emotional intelligence and agreeableness, lack of teamwork knowledge skills and abilities, and group participation, cohesion, and performance. We extend the research on the TPI as a tool for assessing student teamwork interest and a predictor for group work satisfaction. Furthermore, this study investigates the importance of teamwork interest in light of individual differences within group work used as part of an active learning strategy.

Extraversion

Research on working in groups has also focused on the role of personality for predicting group outcomes. The Five Factor model of personality is a widely known and well-researched framework for conducting research on personality, particularly in group research (Peeters et al., 2006b). This personality theory defines five personality categories: conscientiousness, agreeableness, openness to experience, emotional stability, and extraversion (Goldberg, 1992). Although all five personality variables have been shown to predict group outcomes (LePine et al., 2011; Peeters et al., 2006b), we focus on extraversion. Extraversion is defined as “the proclivity to be sociable, enthusiastic, energetic and optimistic” (LePine et al., 2011: 312). A person who is high on extraversion is sociable, talkative, likes activity, and experiences positive emotions (Costa and McCrae, 1992). Because teams rely on communication, social behavior, and positive interactions, extraversion is often viewed as a desirable group member trait and antecedent to good group outcomes (Driskell et al., 2006; Mohammed and Angell, 2004).

Recently, team composition, particularly personality composition, has been examined as a predictor for team outcomes (LePine et al., 2011). There are several models for computing variables that characterize the group as a whole, rather than the individuals within the group. The aggregation, or supplementary model, is the circumstance in which an individual personality characteristic is aggregated to the group level by summing, adding, or averaging group members’ individual scores. The supplementary model implies a greater amount of the group’s personality characteristic will be linearly related to a desired outcome (Barrick et al., 1998). The variability, or complementary, model calculates the variance within a group on the personality trait. This model is appropriate when looking to detect the amount of diversity within the group with regard to the trait of interest (Barrick et al., 1998). Finally, the minimum or maximum score for the group’s members on the variable of interest may be used to represent the group’s score as a whole. This type of aggregation would be appropriate for disjunctive and conjunctive tasks, where one individual is capable of either carrying the group’s success or holding the group back (Barrick et al., 1998). We examine the supplementary (mean extraversion) and complementary (extraversion dispersion) models as these two models are frequently used in evaluating teamwork variables.

Team extraversion is commonly aggregated using either supplementary or complementary models; however, results using either aggregation are equivocal across studies. Because extraversion is a desirable trait for group work (Mohammed and Angell, 2004; Morgeson et al., 2005; Peeters et al., 2006a), higher mean extraversion may predict desirable group outcomes. There is support for this model, indicating higher mean extraversion is related to better group performance and greater satisfaction within the group (Barrick et al., 1998; Peeters et al., 2006a). However, because extroverts are dominant and like to be socially active, too many extroverts within a group may lead to increased role conflict (Humphrey et al., 2011), power struggles (Neuman et al., 1999), and distracting socialization (Mohammed and Angell, 2004). Therefore, it may be beneficial for teams to have a range of extraverted members (i.e. greater extraversion dispersion) to facilitate role differentiation, leadership, and performance (Humphrey et al., 2011), especially with regard to an educational setting in which the teams are likely to be formed during the academic session, rather than be of long standing as is a common case in the work setting. Indeed, findings indicate greater extraversion dispersion within a group is related to better team performance and more attraction to the team (Humphrey et al., 2011; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Neuman et al., 1999; Peeters et al., 2006a). Unfortunately, little research has connected group personality with satisfaction (Peeters et al., 2006a). However, satisfaction is typically linked to performance (Seo et al., 2004), so we expect that since both extraversion dispersion and mean extraversion have been linked to performance (Barrick et al., 1998; Humphrey et al., 2011; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Neuman et al., 1999; Peeters et al., 2006a), they will also predict satisfaction.

Few studies have examined Kline’s TPI in conjunction with personality, particularly extraversion. As an individual trait, extraversion has been found to positively predict teamwork interest as measured with the TPI (Ilarda and Findlay, 2006). A curvilinear relationship between extraversion and TPI scores has been hypothesized, but no significant results have been found for such a statistical relationship; however, analysis was conducted using only individual, not aggregated, data (O’Neill and Kline, 2008).

We investigate the link between group extraversion, TPI scores, and student satisfaction with the group. Based on extraversion and TPI research, we predict the following:

H1: TPI scores are positively related to group satisfaction.

H2: Greater extraversion dispersion enhances individual satisfaction with the group above and beyond TPI scores.

H3: Higher mean extraversion enhances individual satisfaction with the group above and beyond TPI scores.

Method

Participants

Study data were gathered from 206 participants across several cohort classes in an upper-level undergraduate-level course from a midsized public university in southern California. Students were primarily female (83.5%), and the mean age was 24.8 years old (SD = 6.23). Students were primarily White (46.1%) and Hispanic (35.0%); students also categorized their ethnicity as African American (9.2%), Asian American (4.9%), and other (4.9%). The sample consisted of primarily upper-class students with the class breakdown as follows: seniors (52.9%), juniors (42.2%), sophomores (1.9%), graduate students (1.9%), and freshman (0.5%).

Procedure

Students were enrolled in an undergraduate upper-division psychology course that required a course-length group project. To facilitate student involvement in forming groups, students constructed and reviewed each other’s résumés/curriculum vitae to form groups of 2–6 people for the course project. At the start of the project, students were given a survey assessing their teamwork interest, personality, team KSAs (not reported here), and demographics. At the conclusion of the project, students were administered an additional survey assessing their satisfaction with the group.

Measures

Teamwork interest was measured using Kline (1999)’s TPI. The TPI was developed using multiple studies and samples to measure team effectiveness. The TPI has been demonstrated to be related to team cohesion, and has evidenced good reliability (Kline, 1999). This 10-item inventory asked participants to rate the extent to which they agreed with a number of statements assessing teamwork interest on a 5-point Likert scale. “I enjoy working on group projects” and “Group work is overrated in terms of actual results produced” are sample items. Alpha was .82.

Extraversion was measured using Saucier’s (1994) Mini Marker Big Five scale. This scale was originally developed as a shortened version of Goldberg’s (1992) Big Five Marker scale. Participants rated how accurately 40 adjectives (e.g. “bold,” “talkative,” “shy,” and “bashful”) described themselves on a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 9. Alpha for the extraversion scale was .82. We computed aggregated scale scores in two ways. Group values were generated by calculating the mean and standard deviation for each group as a measure of mean extraversion and extraversion dispersion, respectively (LePine et al., 2011).

Satisfaction with the group was measured at the individual level using five items adapted from Lester et al. (2002). This scale was originally developed using the leader satisfaction and social satisfaction subscales from the Job Diagnostic Survey (Hackman and Oldham, 1975). Individuals rated their level of satisfaction with each item (e.g. “The amount of support and guidance that I received from others in my group” and “The chance to help other group members while completing group work”) using a 7-point Likert scale. Alpha was .92.

Results

Two hierarchical models were analyzed in EQS 6.1 (Bentler, 2000–2008, Multivariate Software, Inc.). The supplementary model tested the interaction between individual-level teamwork interest and extraversion aggregated across the group (group mean) for predicting individual satisfaction with the group. The complementary model tested the interaction between individual-level teamwork interest and group-level extraversion dispersion for predicting individual satisfaction with the group. Groups with less than two complete responses were deleted from the analysis. After cleaning and screening data for normality, multicollinearity, range restriction, outliers, and missing data, 206 individual cases and 65 groups remained in the final data set. Average group size was 3.17 members.

Bivariate correlations between each of the variables are reported in Table 1. Descriptive statistics including sample size, means, and standard deviations at both the individual and group level are reported in Table 2. The intraclass correlation of .274 indicated small, but sufficient variance between groups to perform a multilevel analysis. Group differences on the independent variable of teamwork interest warranted a multilevel statistical approach.

Table 1.

Individual-level bivariate correlations.

	1	2	3
1. TPI	1.00
2. Extraversion	.061	1.00
3. Group work satisfaction	.079	.111	1.00

TPI: Team Player Inventory. All correlations are not significant, p > .05

Table 2.

Multilevel analysis results.

	N	M	SD	Std. Beta	R²
Individual model					.001
TPI	206	28.08	6.96	.027
Satisfaction	206	29.17	6.25
Complementary model					.510
TPI				.454
Extraversion dispersion	65	9.24	4.59	−.342*
Interaction				−.432*
Supplementary model					.150
TPI				.315
Mean extraversion	65	47.50	6.90	.225
Interaction				.023

SD: standard deviation; TPI: Team Player Inventory.

p < .05.

To calculate the complementary model, the individual predictor, TPI score, was centered at the grand mean to aid in interpretation and to avoid multicollinearity. Teamwork interest in and of itself did not significantly predict individual group satisfaction (r = .001, p > .05). The second-level predictor, extraversion dispersion, was then entered into the equation uncentered to calculate its impact on satisfaction in combination with TPI. Multilevel inferential statistics are reported in Table 2.

The full model failed to predict individual group satisfaction (χ² (3) = 2.47, p = .48); however, extraversion dispersion was a significant predictor of satisfaction, and the addition of group extraversion bolstered the impact of teamwork interest on satisfaction, suggesting the possibility of a statistical suppressor effect. As extraversion similarity among group members increased, individuals reported more satisfaction with the group. Further, the interaction between extraversion dispersion and TPI significantly predicted satisfaction. Specifically, the impact of extraversion dispersion became more pronounced as individual TPI score increased (p < .05). To view the effect of the interactive term, see Figure 1. The supplementary model was calculated similarly by building on the individual-level TPI model. Mean extraversion was also entered into the equation uncentered; the full model failed to predict individual group satisfaction (χ²(1) = 1.44, p = .23); none of the individual criteria significantly predicted individual satisfaction with the group (p > .05, refer to Table 2).

Figure 1.

Interaction between TPI score and extraversion dispersion for predicting group work satisfaction.

Discussion

We investigated the relationship between teamwork interest, group extraversion, and satisfaction with the group. We hypothesized that teamwork interest, measured using Klein’s (1999) TPI, would predict satisfaction with the group. We also hypothesized that group extraversion dispersion would impact student satisfaction with the group. Specifically, we predicted that both greater extraversion dispersion and higher mean group extraversion would predict greater group work satisfaction.

None of the hypotheses were supported at conventional significance levels; however, the analyses did yield significant and unexpected meaningful results. The results indicate extraversion dispersion was related to student satisfaction with the group, but in the opposite direction of the hypothesis; group members with similar extraversion rated group work as more satisfying. Further, extraversion dispersion impacted teamwork interest’s relationship with group work satisfaction, as indicated by a suppressor effect. Adding extraversion dispersion bolstered the effect size of teamwork interest, although not to traditional statistical significance levels. Further, the results indicated a significant interaction effect between teamwork interest and extraversion dispersion. As teamwork interest increased, extraversion dispersion had a greater impact on individual satisfaction with the group. The satisfaction of individuals who were more interested in group work depended on how similar group members’ personalities (specifically extraversion) were to one another. For individuals who were less interested in group work, personality did not have a large impact on their satisfaction.

Although the analyses did not yield expected results, they are nevertheless interesting and further our understanding of group work in higher education. One of the ways this study makes its contribution to the literature is its use of the TPI scale as a measure of teamwork interest, which is surprisingly underutilized in group work literature. It was particularly interesting that teamwork interest was not a significant predictor of satisfaction with the group, as previous studies have indicated teamwork interest is an important predictor of team performance and cohesion (MacDonnell et al., 2009; O’Neill and Kline, 2008). Research on team orientation, a construct similarly defined as preference for teamwork, may shed some light on these results. Mohammed and Angell (2004) found team orientation had no direct impact on group work outcomes, but did interact with other aspects of the team, specifically diversity, to predict group work performance. Furthermore, research has found teamwork interest is correlated with extraversion (Ilarda and Findlay, 2006), and both the interaction and suppressor effects we found support evidence that the impact of teamwork interest is dependent on alternative team characteristics, including personality. Future research should further investigate the ways in which teamwork interest can be moderated by characteristics of the task and the group, preferably characteristics that instructors have some control over to facilitate group work experiences. Because most of the previously found results predict group performance, it may be that teamwork interest is simply a better predictor of performance than satisfaction. Again, future research is needed to warrant this assertion.

The extraversion dispersion results are also surprising, particularly because they are inconsistent with much of the literature, suggesting greater mean extraversion or extraversion dispersion predicts better performance and greater satisfaction (Barrick et al., 1998; Humphrey et al., 2011; Peeters et al., 2006a). However, as with TPI, most of the results on group extraversion focus on predicting performance rather than satisfaction (Peeters et al., 2006a). Future studies should focus on group work satisfaction as an outcome for group personality, with the intention of improving group work facilitation.

Ultimately, the results of this study can be useful to instructors looking to improve the student group work experience. Specifically, our results support the use of surveying students to gather individual information that can be used to compose groups so the individuals find the group work experience to be a satisfying one. Pending additional empirical support for the nonsignificant finding for the TPI, because teamwork interest has been found to correlate to team cohesion in earlier studies, it still might be useful to use such an instrument of teamwork interest to help compose groups. Also, extroversion may be useful to measure in advance and use to compose groups. More specifically, instructors may want to use pre-project surveys to identify individual personalities, and compose groups of students who are alike in extroversion to promote a positive group experience. (As an aside, this latter finding would not have been found if a multilevel statistical analysis had not been used.) Finally, our results can be used to support the body of existing literature that emphasizes the importance of instructor facilitation when composing and managing groups for moderating the impact of individual, group, and task characteristics.

There are some limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. First, the tested models had relatively few statistical parameters, which decreases the stability of the results. The results are also limited because the data had several missing data points, limiting the sample size, power of the analyses, and potentially, accuracy of the aggregated variables. Due to these methodological limitations, future studies with student groups are needed to replicate these results to ensure generalizability. Additionally, our study is limited in its scope. There are several other personality characteristics, in particular agreeableness and conscientiousness, which may help instructors to compose effective teams (LePine et al., 2011).

Despite these limitations, we expanded on the literature by examining teamwork interest, a variable that has been little studied in group work, and group extraversion. The results suggest that extraversion may trump teamwork interest, at least in academic-focused project groups. More importantly, the results have implications for instructors who want to improve the group work experiences of their students. With respect to extraversion, individuals of homogenous groups appear to be more satisfied with their group experience. Group work is an increasingly vital tool for instruction with several known benefits including the ability to improve the learning experience, self-esteem, and achievement and to strengthen knowledge, skills, and problem-solving abilities (Hillyard et al., 2010; Micari and Drane, 2011; Scott-Ladd and Chan, 2008; Springer et al., 1999). Helping students have satisfying group experiences while at university lays the groundwork for the skill development needed in today’s team-oriented workforce.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Jodie Ullman and Matt Riggs for their helpful data analysis consultations, as well as Janelle Gilbert for her thoughtful comments in reviewing this article. We also thank the editor and two reviewers for their excellent suggestions that improved the article markedly.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author biographies

Kimberly A French earned her M.S. in Industrial–Organizational Psychology at California State University, San Bernardino (CSUSB), and is currently an Industrial–Organizational Psychology doctoral student at the University of South Florida. She has held teaching assistant and graduate teaching associate positions at CSUSB, a teaching assistant position at University of South Florida, and is pursuing a long-term career in academia. She is interested in using research-based pedagogical practices to improve student experiences and learning in higher education settings. Address: Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Ave., PCD 4118G, Tampa, FL 33620, USA. [email: frenchk@mail.usf.edu]

Janet L Kottke is Professor of Psychology at CSUSB where she founded the master’s program in Industrial–Organizational Psychology. She has published and presented numerous articles on pedagogical issues related to student learning of which applied experiences figure prominently. In 2008, she won the university’s Outstanding Professor Award, the highest honor accorded a CSUSB faculty member and acknowledgement of superior teaching, professional achievement, and community service. Address: Department of Psychology, California State University, San Bernardino, 5500 University Parkway, San Bernardino, CA 92407, USA. [email: jkottke@csusb.edu]

References

Barrick

Stewart

Neubert

. (1998) Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology 83: 377–91.

Bell

(2007) Deep-Level Composition Variables as Predictors of Team Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 92: 595–613.

Bentler

(2000–2008). EQS 6.1, Software, Inc.

Bonwell

Eison

(1991) Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom AEHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, DC: Jossey-Bass.

Bonwell

Sutherland

(1996) The active learning continuum: Choosing activities to engage students in the classroom. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 67: 3–16.

Bronfenbrenner

(1979) The Ecology of Human Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Brown

(2010) Process-oriented guided-inquiry learning in an introductory anatomy and physiology course with a diverse student population. Advances in Physiological Education 34: 150–5.

Burdett

Hastie

(2009) Predicting satisfaction with group work assignments. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice 6: 61–71.

Cavanaugh

(2011) Students’ experiences of active engagement though cooperative learning activities in lectures. Active Learning in Higher Education 12: 23–33.

10.

Chen

Donahue

Klimoski

(2004) Training undergraduates to work in organizational teams. Academy of Management Learning & Education 3: 27–40.

11.

Colbeck

Campbell

Bjorklund

(2000) Grouping in the dark: What college students learn from group projects. Journal of Higher Education 71: 60–83.

12.

Costa

McCrae

(1992) Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO personality inventory. Psychological Assessment 4: 5–13.

13.

Driskell

Goodwin

Salas

. (2006) What makes a good team player? Personality and team effectiveness. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 10: 249–71.

14.

Goldberg

(1992) The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment 4: 26–42.

15.

Goldfinch

Hughes

(2007) Skills, Learning Styles and Success of First-Year Undergraduates. Active Learning in Higher Education 8: 259.

16.

Harris

(1996) Managing effectively through teams. Team Performance Management 2: 23–66.

17.

Hackman

Oldham

(1976) Motivation Through the Design of Work: Test of a Theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 16: 250–279.

18.

Hillyard

Gillespie

Littig

(2010) University students’ attitudes about learning in small groups after frequent participation. Active Learning in Higher Education 11: 9–20.

19.

Howell

(2006) Student Perceptions of Learner-Centered Education. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Northern Rocky Mountain Educational Research (ERIC Reproduction Series: ED494914).

20.

Humphrey

Hollenbeck

Meyer

. (2011) Personality configurations in self-managed teams: A natural experiment on the effects of maximizing and minimizing variance in traits. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 41: 1701–32.

21.

Ilarda

Findlay

(2006) Emotional intelligence and propensity to be a team player. E-Journal of Applied Psychology 2: 19–29.

22.

Johnson

Smith

(2007) The state of cooperative learning in postsecondary and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review 19: 15–29.

23.

Kline

TJB

(1999) The team player inventory: Reliability and validity of a measure of predisposition toward organizational team-working environments. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work 24: 102–12.

24.

Kottke

(2008) Able but not willing? Teamwork aptitude and interest meet head-on. In: Presented at the annual conference of the society for industrial and organizational psychology, San Diego, CA, 10 April.

25.

Kraiger

Ford

Salas

(1993) Applications of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation [Monograph]. Journal of Applied Psychology 78: 311–28.

26.

Kristof-Brown

Barrick

Stevens

(2005) When opposites attract: A multi-sample demonstration of complementary person-team fit on extraversion. Journal of Personality 73: 935–58.

27.

LePine

Buckman

Crawford

. (2011) A review of research on personality in teams: Accounting for pathways spanning levels of theory and analysis. Human Resource Management Review 21: 311–30.

28.

Lester

Meglino

Korsgaard

(2002) The antecedents and consequences of group potency: A longitudinal investigation of newly formed work groups. Academy of Management Journal 45: 352–68.

29.

MacDonnell

O’Neill

Kline

. (2009) Bringing group-level personality to the electronic realm: A comparison of face-to-face and virtual contexts. The Psychologist-Manager Journal 12: 1–24.

30.

Martinez-Caro

Campuzano-Bolarin

(2011) Factors affecting students’ satisfaction in engineering disciplines: Traditional vs. blended approaches. European Journal of Engineering Education 36: 473–83.

31.

Mateev

Milter

(2010) An Implementation of Active Learning: Assessing the Effectiveness of the Team Infomercial Assignment. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 42: 201–213.

32.

Micari

Drane

(2011) Intimidation in small learning groups: The roles of social-comparison concern, comfort, and individual characteristics in student academic outcomes. Active Learning in Higher Education 12: 175–87.

33.

Mohammed

Angell

(2004) Surface- and deep-level diversity in workgroups: Examining the moderating effects of team orientation and team process on relationship conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior 25: 1015–39.

34.

Morgeson

Reider

Campion

(2005) Selecting individuals in team settings: The importance of social skills, personality characteristics, and teamwork knowledge. Personnel Psychology 58: 583–611.

35.

Neuman

Wagner

Christiansen

(1999) the relationship between work-team personality composition and the job performance of teams. Group & Organization Management 24: 28–45.

36.

O’Neill

Kline

TJB

(2008) Personality as a predictor of teamwork: A business simulator study. North American Journal of Psychology 10: 65–78.

37.

Peeters

Rutte

van Tuijl

. (2006a) The Big Five personality traits and individual satisfaction with the team. Small Group Research 37: 187–211.

38.

Peeters

Van Tuijl

Rutte

. (2006b) Personality and team performance: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Personality 20: 377–96.

39.

Saucier

(1994) Mini-markers: A mini-version of Goldberg’s unipolar Big-Five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment 63: 506–16.

40.

Scott-Ladd

Chan

(2008) Using action research to teach students to manage team learning and improve teamwork satisfaction. Active Learning in Higher Education 9: 231–48.

41.

Seo

Feldman Barrett

Bartunek

(2004) The Role of Affective Experience in Work Motivation. Academy of Management Review 29: 423–439.

42.

Springer

Stanne

Donovan

(1999) Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 69: 21–51.

43.

Stevens

Campion

(1994) The Knowledge, Skill, and Ability Requirements for Teamwork: Implications for Human Resource Management. Journal of Management 20: 503–530.