Investigating Team Roles Within Long-Term Project-Based Learning Experiences
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
Abstract This evidence-based practice paper investigates students' perceptions of and discourse surrounding their team roles on a multidisciplinary project-based learning (PBL) team and if/how those views and enactments change over time. This study also examines how designated student leaders' self-perceptions of their team role compare to their peers' assessment of their leadership. Analysis of the study's perception and discourse data will consider participants' discipline, gender, ethnicity/race, and academic year. From this, we aim to understand how leadership on PBL student teams is established, enacted, and evolves over time, and what factors may influence such development. While many engineering education programs have first-year cornerstone and final-year capstone project experiences, the middle years tend to lack similar multidisciplinary and long-term team project experiences. The Vertically Integrated Projects (VIP) Program at a large urban university encompasses teams of students – from various academic years and disciplines – who are advised by faculty to engage on long-term and large-scale projects. The VIP Model is aimed directly at engaging students during the middle years of engineering education and maintaining their engagement on a project of their choice for at least 3 consecutive semesters, honing technical and professional skills. The VIP Model is an evidence-based approach for multidisciplinary project-based learning that is active at 40 institutions around the world. Long-term student engagement affords each VIP Team the time and space to develop an organizational structure. Over this extended period of time, students also have the opportunity to establish, enact, and change leadership roles. This study focuses on the subset of VIP Teams categorized as Design Competition VIP Teams. These VIP Teams participate in annual intercollegiate competitions that are hosted by, sponsored by, and/or affiliated with professional organizations or societies (e.g., SAE, NASA, ASCE). These VIP Teams are generally the largest teams that have formal team roles and student leadership structures (in contrast to VIP Teams with faculty-guided leadership). BelbinⓇ defined (and provided discourse examples of) a team role as a particular behavioral preference while performing tasks with other team members, distinguishing it from a functional role (the operational knowledge and technical skills relevant to performing a task). This distinction allows for the possibility that a group may be composed of several team members with the same functional role and different team role(s). This study employs the BelbinⓇ Team Role Self-Perception Inventory (TRSPI), the Observers' Assessment Sheets (OAS), and discourse analysis of video-recorded Design Competition VIP Team meetings at several time points to investigate students' perceptions and enactments of their and their peers' designated and explicit team role(s) and how these may change over time. Comparing collected survey and discourse data over time to participants' demographic survey data will make possible a greater understanding of how these perceptions and discourse vary with respect to discipline, academic year, race/ethnicity, and gender. The goal of this study is to understand how students develop and enact their team roles, how peers view designated leaders' team roles, and whether these observations are related to demographic and academic backgrounds.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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