A Team-effectiveness Inventory for Guided Reflection and Feedback
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the development and refinement of the Team-effectiveness Inventory (TEI) used to facilitate student self-and peer-assessments of individual team-effectiveness in teambased project courses. The objective of the TEI is to create a common language by which guided reflection and feedback can be provided based on visible behaviour competencies as a means to engage students in learning about and improving their individual team-effectiveness. An initial version of the TEI was developed with three aspects (organizational, relational and communication) and 27 competencies. This TEI was studied through responses collected in a first year engineering design class of 250 students in Winter 2012. Correlation analysis was applied to student assessments and combined with the qualitative analyses of survey and focus group feedback from the teaching assistants and students to develop an understanding of how students perceive and use the inventory. Based on this analysis, the 27 competencies were reduced to 18. Student perceptions of the inventory as well as details of the modifications made to the TEI are presented herein.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it