Content uploaded by Tanju Deveci
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tanju Deveci on Apr 17, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Forum for Education Studies 2024, 2(2), 555.
https://doi.org/10.59400/fes.v2i2.555
1
Article
Engineering students’ thoughts on teamwork and approaches to solving a
problem with an underperforming member
Tanju Deveci1,*, İdris Bedirhanoğlu2
1 Antalya Bilim University, Antalya 07190, Turkey
2 Dicle University, Diyarbakir 21280, Turkey
* Corresponding author: Tanju Deveci, tanjudedeveci@yahoo.com
Abstract: Engineering programs have to develop students’ teamwork skills. However, the
onus on content specialists to teach teamwork skills may be challenging partly because of
students’ negative attitudes towards and experiences with teamwork. This study investigated
295 engineering students’ thoughts on teamwork and the strategies they used to solve problems
with underperforming team members. Data were collected using a survey and a discourse
completion task. The results revealed that among the key reasons why the students liked such
activities was the exchange of information and experience, increased quantity and quality of
work, and interpersonal communication. However, they indicated lack of harmony, social
loafing, lack of attention paid to tasks, and individual approaches to learning as reasons for
skepticism about teamwork. As to problem-solving strategies, emphatic inquiry and
judgmental questioning were most common. Based on these results, we suggest that
engineering faculty collaborate with communication instructors in planning and executing soft-
skills training for students. Engineering faculty should also be provided with technical support
for the incorporation of teamwork activities in virtual environments.
Keywords: engineering education; interactive learning; interpersonal communication;
problem solving; soft-skills; teamwork
1. Introduction
Successful engineers require a variety of soft skills, among which are those
related to teamwork, which can be defined as “the actions of individuals who have
been brought together with their diverse but complementary skills to achieve a
common purpose or goal” [1]. Therefore, the Accreditation Board for Engineering and
Technology (ABET) [2] mandates that engineering programs demonstrate that their
graduates exhibit ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams and communicate
effectively. Accordingly, curricula in college degree programs often include a variety
of learning outcomes pertaining to teamwork.
Much research has been conducted to identify the elements of successful
teamwork in engineering education as well as the barriers to it. Regarding the former,
goals and values being shared by all team members is the main determining factor [3].
On the other hand, team members’ limited contributions, individual differences
between team members (e.g., abilities and expectations), problems with assessment,
and teams’ process-related issues diminish the success rates and, therefore, reduce
students’ satisfaction with team experiences [4]. Similarly, female engineering
students have reported limited learning because of their limited role on teams [5]. The
impact of a negative team experience can be such that students, particularly females,
may question their place in their respective engineering disciplines, causing some to
CITATION
Deveci T, Bedirhanoğlu I.
Engineering students’ thoughts on
teamwork and approaches to solving
a problem with an underperforming
member. Forum for Education
Studies. 2024; 2(2): 555.
https://doi.org/10.59400/fes.v2i2.555
ARTICLE INFO
Received: 19 February 2024
Accepted: 28 March 2024
Available online: 17 April 2024
COPYRIGHT
Copyright © 2024 by author(s).
Forum for Education Studies is
published by Academic Publishing
Pte. Ltd. This work is licensed under
the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/4.0/
Forum for Education Studies 2024, 2(2), 555.
2
drop out [6].
Communication is “the practice of producing and negotiating meanings [and it]
always takes place under specific social, cultural and political conditions” [7]. Just as
there are different countries with distinct cultures, organizations also each have their
own sub-cultures within the dominant culture of the country in which they are situated.
That is, the reasons why teamwork in a particular engineering education setting is (not)
popular may be similar to or different from those in other settings within the same
country or culture.
It is also important to note that gender plays a significant role in team interactions.
There is evidence that gender diversity in scientific work and successful interaction
between genders improves group processes leading to greater innovation [8]. Such
improvement is equally important in engineering education. However, it is also
important to note that our communication patterns are influenced by the gender of the
interlocutors. For example, Basow and Rubenfeld [9] observe that women are
generally more expressive and polite while men tend to be more assertive and
dominant. Also, Amelink and Creamer [10] found that female and male team members
have different approaches to interaction and problem solving. To illustrate, a student
in their study noted that a female student would tend to wait until the end of a group
discussion to contribute a solution to a problem. Additionally, when faced with a
challenge involving the opposite sex, female engineering students were found to use
more conciliatory language in exchanges with male team members so that they could
avoid direct conflict. However, this was frequently perceived by male students as a
sign of weakness leading them to exert power over them [6].
Team members’ awareness of individual roles and responsibilities plays a
significant role in the success of team activities and the kinds of relationships that form
as a result [11]. Each team member must take full responsibility for their own team
experience [12]. One way to do this is by recognizing that no member is a passive
recipient; each person affects the team at least as much as the team affects him/her.
Also, it is important to accept that each member has shared responsibilities, to learn
the types of behaviors and processes that lead to a successful team and to exhibit them.
Yet not all students may be willing to act on those principles. A commonly observed
problem in teams across different contexts is a lack of responsible behavior in the form
of ‘slacking’ [13] and ‘social loafing’ [14].
2. The significance of the study and research questions
The main significance of the current study stems from its examination of a
particular issue surrounding teamwork in engineering education regarding soft skills
development and gender dynamics within team interactions. As emphasized by
accreditation standards and existing literature, effective teamwork is essential for
engineering graduates, necessitating a deeper understanding of its intricacies. As
discussed above, previous research has identified shared goals and values as pivotal to
successful teamwork, while also highlighting various challenges such as limited
contributions, individual differences, and gender-related disparities. Notably, negative
team experiences, especially for female students, can have profound implications,
potentially leading to a loss of confidence and even dropout rates. Moreover, team
Forum for Education Studies 2024, 2(2), 555.
3
interaction can also be impacted negatively by ineffective communication behaviours
relating self-expression and differing problem-solving. Eventually, such behaviours
will have negative effects on collaboration and the quality of work produced by the
team. The current study’s focus on students’ perceptions of teamwork, their strategies
for addressing underperforming team members, and potential gender variations therein
offers valuable insights for educators and communication instructors. Identification of
the ways in which students approach such problems and how they communicate their
feelings and thoughts to an underperforming team member can help engineering
educators and communication instructors design curricular activities that support
effective communication among team members and, therefore, increase the
effectiveness of their team-based learning experiences. There is indeed evidence that
a positive correlation exists between engineering students’ responsibility-orientations
and their aptitude for interpersonal communication [15]. Ultimately, the findings hold
promise for fostering a more inclusive and effective learning environment in
engineering education, addressing not only technical competencies but also essential
soft skills vital for future engineers’ success in diverse professional settings.
With these in mind, the current study sought answers to the following research
questions:
1) How much do the students like or dislike teamwork? Why?
2) a) What are their approaches to dealing with an underperforming team member?
b) Does their approach change according to the gender of the underperforming
student?
3. Methodology
3.1. Data collection method and participants
Based on convenience sampling, 295 engineering students in a single Turkish
university (namely Dicle University) were involved in the study. Of this number, 31
(11%) were freshmen; 129 (44%) were sophomores; 57 (19%) were juniors; and 78
(26%) were seniors. The majority (n = 225) were mechanical engineering students
while 37 were civil engineering, 25 were electrical and electronics, and eight were
mining engineering students. Also, 216 (73%) were male and 79 (27%) were female.
The students’ ages ranged from 18 to 47. The mean age was 24.
The choice of the above-mentioned data collection method (i.e., convenience
sampling) was influenced by several factors including the participants’ geographical
proximity, availability, and willingness to participate in the study [16], which were
facilitated by the second author’s use of ‘captive audiences’ [16] in his own institution
(Dicle University in Diyarbakir, Türkiye). The choice of this method was also because
of our time and budget constraints as well as wish to collect data quickly without
extensive planning and recruitment efforts [17]. However, it is important to
acknowledge the possibility that the participants’ responses might have been
influenced by other factors, one of which is sampling bias limiting the accurate
representation of the larger population and generalizability of the results.
Forum for Education Studies 2024, 2(2), 555.
4
3.2. Data collection tools and analysis
The data were collected using a survey comprised of several sections. In the first
section, the students were asked questions related to demographics. In the second
section, the students were first given a working definition of teamwork (i.e., the actions
of students brought together with their diverse but complementary skills to complete
an assignment given by their course instructor). Then they were asked to indicate the
extent to which they liked teamwork. For this, they were given Likert-type scales.
They were also asked open-ended questions to explain their responses. In the third
section, two different hypothetical situations were described to them, one indicating a
male team member (Ali) and another one indicating a female (Fatma) who failed to
effectively carry out the responsibilities of a team task. They were given a discourse-
completion task (DCT) asking them to imagine they see Ali/Fatma alone and they
decide to go and speak to him/her. They were asked to write the exact words they
would say to Ali/Fatma. For this, they were given separate spaces in which to write
their responses.
The data on demographics were then analyzed using descriptive statistics
including frequencies and percentages. The student responses to the Likert-type
questions were analyzed using Microsoft Excel. The students’ responses for the male
and the female underperforming students were compared using a t-test. A p-value of
less than 0.05 was considered significant.
In analyzing the qualitative data, we adopted the thematic analysis approach,
which, according to [18], “Can highlight similarities and differences across the data
set, can generate unanticipated insights, and allows for social as well as psychological
interpretations of data.” To increase the validity of the analysis, we—as the two
researchers—first analyzed the data separately after a brief standardization session. To
that end, we followed the following steps [18]: (a) immersing in the data, (b)
generating initial codes, (c) searching for themes, (d) reviewing themes, (e) defining
and naming themes, and (f) producing the report. In doing this, as recommended by
Jamieson et al. [19], both of us aimed for reflexivity by reflecting on our own potential
biases, assumptions and interpretations. After the separate analyses were completed,
we held a meeting to compare our analyses. We discussed the results until we reached
a consensus.
The themes identified were further validated through peer debriefing [20] where
we discussed our interpretations with two other colleagues with experience in
education research to gain alternative perspectives and ensure credibility.
Among examples themes related to the students’ reasons for positive attitude
towards teamwork are efficiency in learning, quantity and quality of work produced,
and interpersonal relationships. On the other hand, example themes regarding their
skepticism about teamwork include lack of harmony, differing approaches to learning,
and lack of responsibility. The analysis of the qualitative data collected through the
DCT revealed themes like sympathetic inquiry vs. judgmental inquiry, offer of help,
complaint, demand, and request.
4. Results
The first research question asked why the students liked or disliked teamwork. It
Forum for Education Studies 2024, 2(2), 555.
5
also aimed to compare the female and the male students’ responses. The themes that
emerged out of their responses are given in Tables 1 and 2.
Table 1. Reasons for liking teamwork*.
Reasons
f
%
Exchange of ideas, knowledge, and experience
77
37
Efficiency in learning
35
17
Quantity and quality of work produced
33
16
Interpersonal relationship
27
13
Speed of problem solution
13
6
Personal development
11
5
Motivation
7
3
Personality traits
4
2
Reduced work-load
2
1
Total
209
100
*Frequencies and percentages were calculated from the total number of responses as some students did
not answer this question. Some students indicated more than one theme.
Table 2. Reasons for disliking teamwork*.
Reasons
f
%
Lack of harmony
36
33
Individual learning approach
20
18
Students’ lack of responsibility
15
14
Lack of interpersonal communication skills
11
10
Unwillingness to share
7
6
Time consuming
7
6
Lack of care
4
3
Lack of previous experience
3
3
Unfair distribution of work
3
3
Other (health, divergent needs, self-centeredness)
3
3
Total
109
100
*Frequencies and percentages were calculated from the total number of responses as some students did
not answer this question. Some students indicated more than one theme.
Table 1 shows that the most frequently occurring reason was the opportunity to
exchange ideas, knowledge, and experiences (f = 77, 37%). In general, the students
stated that through teamwork they acquire new knowledge and information and learn
to look at issues from different perspectives. Others’ prior experiences were also cited
as a contributing factor. One student noted, “Knowledge multiples and become more
useful as it is shared.” Similarly, a male student said, “Where there are many people,
there is much knowledge.”
The second most frequent reason was efficiency in learning (f = 35, 17%). The
students often stated that teamwork allows them to reinforce learning, unlearn false
information, and notice their mistakes. One student noted that teamwork encourages
him to engage in more research, while another said it makes her a more active learner
Forum for Education Studies 2024, 2(2), 555.
6
during and outside of classes. In the words of one female student, “Team work teaches
me to be self-disciplined, which is an important skill in the workplace, too.”
The third most frequently occurring reason was the increased quantity and quality
of the work produced by the team (f = 33, 16%). Sample student responses include,
“When the number of hands increase, the quality of the work increases,” “Strengths
comes from unity, which increases success,” and “Strength in numbers.”
Interpersonal relationships were the fourth most frequently occurring reason (f =
27, 13%). The students often pointed to the chance to socialize with others. They noted
that this enables them to catch up with friends, make new friends, and tighten bonds
with classmates. One student also indicated that teamwork allows her to meet people
from other cultures. Collectively, these consequences appeared to make learning
activities more engaging. Another student stated, “I like increasing my social circle.”
Another one said, “The more time I spend with my friends, the stronger our ties
become.”
The speed at which problems are resolved was in the fifth place, and personal
development was in the sixth place (f = 13, 6% and f = 11, 5% respectively). Pertaining
to the former, the students said teamwork reduces the likelihood of mistakes, while
also decreasing the time spent on tasks. Teamwork was also noted to enable them to
reach quicker solutions to problems. Those who referred to personal development
indicated teamwork increases their self-esteem and teaches them communication and
planning skills.
Infrequent though they were, increased motivation and personality traits were
also detected in the data set as reasons for appreciating teamwork (f = 7, 3% and f = 4,
2% respectively). The students said teamwork makes the learning experience more
fun, which increases their motivation for learning. One of the students said, “I have
the qualities of a leader; I can manage teams well and persuade team members easily.”
Another one noted, “I like teaching to others.”
Finally, two students mentioned reduced workload. They explained that sharing
the tasks among team members reduces the amount of work each person has to
produce, which in turn decreases the tension they feel.
Table 2 shows that the most frequent reason why the students were skeptical
about teamwork was the lack of harmony in teams (f = 36, 33%). Clashing personality
traits caused a lack of harmony. One male student, for example, stated that pessimistic
types often cause problems. Another one mentioned people with strong personalities
but inadequate knowledge. Five of the students attributed the problem to the age gap
between team members. One student said, “Because of my age, I have difficulty
adapting to the younger generation.” A similar sentiment was expressed by another
student: “Since I am older than the others, I face communication problems.”
The second most frequent reason for skepticism was individual learning
approaches (f = 20, 18%). These students indicated that they like to study alone. One
of the students said, “In this way, I have the ultimate control over things. So, I am
more confident in the quality of the work.” Another student noted, “When I work
alone, I am not distracted by others.”
Other students’ lack of responsibility came in third (14%). The students
complained that there are often students who do not carry out their responsibilities.
One student lamented, “In a group last year, I had to take all the responsibility for the
Forum for Education Studies 2024, 2(2), 555.
7
project since no one was willing to work.” Another student said, “Some in the team
might not fully aware of what it takes to be a team.” There were also comments on
some students’ tendency not to participate in the task actively. One student pointed out
that there are always students who depend on more able students on the team.
Linked to the lack of harmony above, the lack of interpersonal communication
skills was another reason (11%). These students explained that they either did not
know the other students or had difficulty meeting new people. One of the students
said, “I cannot show myself in team activities.”
Some of the students also had concerns about how much time the completion of
team tasks likely takes (6%). One student remarked that team members often resorted
to activities or discussions unrelated to team tasks, because of which assignments
required more time.
Unfair distribution of work was another critique of teamwork (3%). The students
noted that some teammates take a smaller portion of the work or the easier tasks.
Consequently, this increases the workload on others. Among additional reasons were
students’ unwillingness to share with others (6%), the lack of care given to the tasks
(3%), inadequate prior experience (3%), and others (3%) including health, divergent
needs, and self-centeredness.
The second research question was related to the approaches the students would
adopt to tackle problems with an underperforming team member. Toward this end,
they were first asked questions to identify their general attitude. Statistical analyses
were conducted to see whether the students’ responses would differ for the male and
the female underperforming student. The results are given in Table 3.
Table 3. Comparison in regard to student gender.
Ali
(male)
Fatma
(female)
x
x
t
p*
1) No matter how concerned I might be, I would not speak
to Ali/Fatma about the situation.
1.6
1.7
−2.3041
0.0219
2) I would speak to the course instructor about the issue.
2.6
2.7
4.084
0.0000
3) I would speak to the other team members about the issue.
4.1
4.1
0.0742
0.9409
4) I expect Ali/Fatma would have a valid reason(s) for the
issue.
2.9
3.4
10.3477
0.0000
5) The team should help Ali/Fatma to carry out his/her
tasks.
3.8
3.9
3.3371
0.0009
*p < 0.05.
There were often statistical differences between the approaches the students
thought they would adopt towards the male student and the female student. First, the
students indicated disagreement with the statement that they would not speak to the
underperforming student regardless of his/her gender. However, their disagreement
was slightly stronger concerning Ali’s performance, a result at a statistically
significant level (t = −2.3041, p = 0.0219 < 0.05).
Pertaining to the second statement, the students tended to refrain from
complaining to the course instructor about their team members’ poor performances.
However, they were slightly less willing to discuss the male student’s performance
Forum for Education Studies 2024, 2(2), 555.
8
with the instructor than they were to discuss the female student’s performance (x
= 2.6
vs. 2.7). The difference between the averages was statistically significant (t = 4.084, p
= 0.0000 < 0.05).
The students’ overall average scores for the third statement for both Ali and
Fatma were 4.1. The comparison of the data sets revealed no difference at a statistically
significant level (t = 0.0742, p = 0.9409 > 0.05).
The fourth statement was about the excuses Ali and Fatma might have. There was
a stark difference between the students responses for Ali and Fatma to the benefit of
the latter (x
= 2.9 vs. x
= 3.4). Also, the paired t-test showed that the difference was
statistically significant (t = 10.4377, p = 0.000 < 0.05).
The students leaned towards agreement for the fifth statement. However, their
approach appeared to be slightly different for Ali than for Fatma. For the former, the
average was 3.8 while it was 3.9 for the latter. The difference was at a statistically
significant level, too (t = 3.3371, p = 0.0009 < 0.05).
In order to understand how students would behave pragmatically, two
hypothetical situations were described to them (one with Ali and another with Fatma),
and they were asked to indicate the exact words they would say. The results are
summarized in Table 4.
Table 4. Strategy use*.
With Ali
(male)
With Fatma
(female)
f
%
f
%
Sympathetic inquiry
111
28
107
29
Judgmental inquiry
89
23
91
24
Offer of help
67
17
65
17
Complaint
63
16
54
14
Demand
28
7
24
6
Request
11
3
14
4
Recommendation
11
3
5
1
Warning
13
3
12
3
Total
393
100
373
100
*Some students didn’t complete the task. Frequencies and percentages were calculated from the total
number of strategies used as the students normally used more than one strategy.
Taken as a whole, the students leaned towards sympathetic inquiry about the
reasons why their team member’s performance was inadequate. Sympathetic inquiry
accounted for 28% of the strategies used with Ali and 29% of those with Fatma.
Sample responses are given below.
If you don’t take it wrong, I’d like to speak with you. Is there something bothering
you? It appears you haven’t done your tasks for the team project. I will be more than
happy to help if there is anything I can do. Would you like to tell me about it? (To
Ali).
We were going to a collaborative project. You are not participating much. I
thought there might be an important reason. (To Ali).
How are you? There things you were expected to do for the project. Have you
Forum for Education Studies 2024, 2(2), 555.
9
been able to finish it? (To Fatma).
You know, all our friends have finished their tasks. Yours is the only one left. I
wonder if you have a problem. I hope there isn’t something serious. (To Fatma).
The percentages of judgmental inquiry in exchanges with Ali and Fatma were
similar (23% and 24%). See below for sample statements.
I want to speak to you about the project. Unfortunately, I see you have not paid
the necessary attention to it. Can I learn the reason for that? (To Ali).
How are you? Do you have a problem? If so, I can do my best. If not, why did
you leave us half way through? Can you explain? (To Fatma).
Complaint was employed by the students speaking to Ali slightly more than those
speaking to Fatma (16% vs. 14%). Offer of help was employed with a similar
percentage with the male and the female students (17%). Sample responses are given
below.
We together are in a project and everyone has a responsibility. But I think you
are not carrying out your responsibilities, unlike the others. (To Ali).
You did not do what you were supposed to do. If you want, we should find a
solution. (To Fatma).
A solution was sought using a demand or a request. The former was used slightly
more in responses to Ali than in those to Fatma (7% vs. 6%) whereas the latter was
used slightly more often in responses to Fatma than in those to Ali (4% vs. 3%).
Request, on the other hand, was used more often with the female student. Sample
responses include:
Submit your portion of the assignment on time. (To Fatma).
I request you give importance to the project. (To Ali).
Can you do your task for the group on time? (To Fatma).
The students also made recommendations, which occurred more often in
exchanges with Ali than those in Fatma (3% vs. 1%). On the other hand, warnings,
albeit infrequent, were issued with the same frequency for Ali and Fatma (3%). See
the sample responses below.
If you have a specific reason, you should speak to the instructor, who always
gives a second chance. (To Fatma).
If you do not pull yourself together, we will inform the instructor. (To Ali).
5. Discussion
The results pointed to the students’ above average rating for how much they liked
teamwork activities. When asked for the reasons, they often referred to the opportunity
to exchange ideas, knowledge, and experience—a result commonly reported in
previous research, too [21, 22]. Although mentioned less often, the increased quantity
and quality of work was another important reason. Taken together, these data may
suggest the students tended to pay more attention to group processes than products—
a result lending credence to earlier observations [23].
In addition to the aforementioned lack of harmony, some other reasons were also
cited by the students as factors with negative impacts on their satisfaction with
teamwork. One of these was the students’ preference for individual study. They noted
that this enables them to go at their own pace and ensure control over processes and
Forum for Education Studies 2024, 2(2), 555.
10
the ultimate product. Those who mentioned this also pointed to team assignments
taking longer than individual ones. Infrequent though they were, factors like a lack of
interpersonal communication skills and a lack of care taken towards tasks were also
mentioned by some students. Consistent with these findings, [4] also found that
differences in team members’ abilities and some members’ limited contribution and
motivation were among the reasons students’ were worried about teamwork. Pfaff and
Huddleston [24] also observed that a variety of similar student-caused problems (e.g.,
not contributing one’s full potential, disruptive behaviors, a leader that was too
dominant) and instructor-caused ones (e.g., grading approach) can prevent students
from benefiting from teamwork fully.
The results also showed that the students were concerned about not only the
effects of an underperforming student on the team as a whole but also the well-being
of the student himself/herself. They generally felt the student likely had an acceptable
excuse and the team should help each other carry out their tasks. Considering the
collectivist nature of the culture in which the study was undertaken, this is an expected
result. Individuals in collectivist cultures work to support the needs of the team and
emphasize relationship building and collaboration so that the team’s outcomes are
ensured [25]. The sympathetic inquiries produced by the students often showed that
they were willing to listen and help. They also thought the team should meet up and
discuss how to tackle the issue and assist the underperforming student. Such social
skills create compatibility among team members and reduce tension. However, it is
also important to note the results of earlier research indicating in some collectivist
cultures (e.g., the Emirati) team members may choose not to express their
disappointment with an underperforming student, at least not verbally or directly to
the student himself/herself [26]. This is because complaints are face-threatening acts
[27] and members of collectivist cultures may refrain from complaining and
expressing dissatisfaction explicitly with the belief that such confrontations prevent
harmonious relationships [28]. Such teammates may desist even if it means overriding
the task assigned [29]. In the current study, too, there were quite a few students who
said they would not speak to the underperforming member.
The analysis of the students’ strategy use showed that they were often
sympathetic with both Ali and Fatma. However, judgmental inquiry was utilized with
Fatma, the female underperformer, slightly more frequently than it was used with Ali,
the male underperformer. A closer look at the data set revealed that this occurred more
often in the female data set, which also included more frequent use of demand.
Together, these data may point to the female students’ tougher approach towards a
student of the same-sex. We wonder if this may be related to ‘the Queen Bee
Syndrome’, according to which women that have been successful in male-dominated
environments likely cause problems to other women in the same environment
preventing them from advancing [30]. Or, is it because they find it easier to express
emotions and thoughts to females than to males, or because they feel more responsible
for their female counterparts and feel the need to urge them to work harder? The latter
may be explained by social identity theory, according to which individuals tend to
favor members of their own group (ingroup) over members of other groups
(outgroups), a phenomenon known as ingroup bias [31]. This theory suggests that
individuals tend to favor members of their own group (ingroup) over members of other
Forum for Education Studies 2024, 2(2), 555.
11
groups (outgroups). In mixed-gender teams, women may identify more strongly with
other women as ingroup members, leading to higher expectations and demands
compared to male team members perceived as outgroup members. This ingroup bias
can contribute to more demanding behavior towards other women in the team.
The female students’ tendency to be more judgmental towards the other female
students in the team setting may have been caused by various factors including
socialization, competition, and internalized gender stereotypes [32]. These dynamics
can stem from societal expectations about women’s behavior, competence, and
leadership abilities, which are often internalized by individuals [33]. As a result,
female students may unconsciously hold biased beliefs about what it means to be a
successful woman, leading to judgmental attitudes towards peers who do not conform
to these stereotypes [32]. Additionally, competition for limited opportunities (as in the
case of the Queen Bee Syndrome), social comparison processes, and perceived threats
to group cohesion can contribute to such judgmental behaviors [33].
Overall, the findings of the research shed light on several significant aspects of
students’ attitudes towards teamwork, their perceptions of underperforming team
members, and the strategies they employ to address these issues. Firstly, the above-
average rating for liking teamwork activities, primarily attributed to the opportunity
for knowledge exchange and increased productivity, underscores the importance
students place on collaborative processes. This emphasis on group dynamics over
outcomes aligns with previous observations and highlights a nuanced understanding
of teamwork among students. Additionally, the identification of factors negatively
impacting satisfaction, such as individual study preferences and communication
deficiencies, underscores the complexity of effective collaboration in educational
settings. Moreover, the students’ concern for both the team’s well-being and the
underperforming student’s individual welfare reflects a collectivist mindset,
emphasizing support and collaboration within the team. This cultural context not only
influences students’ attitudes towards teamwork but also shapes their approach to
addressing performance issues. The observation of differing responses towards
underperforming students based on gender prompts intriguing questions regarding
gender dynamics within teams, including the potential influence of the Queen Bee
Syndrome or gender-specific communication patterns. Taken together, these findings
offer valuable insights into the multifaceted nature of teamwork in engineering
education, highlighting the importance of considering both individual preferences and
cultural influences in fostering effective collaboration among students. Such insights
can help develop effective strategies to enhance teamwork experiences and mitigate
challenges, ultimately contributing to the cultivation of well-rounded engineering
professionals equipped with essential soft skills for success in diverse professional
environments.
6. Recommendations and conclusion
In this paper, we discussed the importance of teamwork skills for engineering
students. We noted that effective teamwork allows students to draw on each other’s
knowledge, skills, and experience. Not only does this enhance the quality and the
quantity of the work produced, but it also reinforces interpersonal communication
Forum for Education Studies 2024, 2(2), 555.
12
among students and contributes to their holistic development and overall well-being.
Accordingly, we suggested ways in which teamwork skills could be incorporated in
engineering curricula. We also provided data on 295 engineering undergraduate
students’ general feelings about teamwork and described their approaches to solving
a perceived problem caused by an underperforming student on their team.
Both faculty and students may be wary of teamwork activities due to potential
problems, many of which were mentioned by the students in the current study, too.
Based on the results of the study and discussion above, however, several
recommendations can be made. One of these is related to team-building activities. At
the beginning of projects, faculty can employ team-building exercises to develop
stronger relationships and understanding among team members. Among such
activities are icebreakers, collaborative problem-solving tasks, or team bonding events
that will foster cohesion and trust within the group. There could also be
communication training for students. These could emphasize active listening,
constructive feedback, and conflict resolution skills. Ultimately, these will enhance
team dynamics. Additionally, to circumvent the problem of a student not contributing
his/her full potential, team membership can be changed periodically or individual
accountability can be increased [24]. In case of behaviors disrupting team dynamics
and causing diversion from the task at hand, either team members or faculty can talk
to the student directly requesting attitude change. Instructors could emphasize the
significance of individual accountability within teams by clearly defining roles,
responsibilities, and expectations for each team member. In addition, students can be
assigned specific roles to play in their teams. Furthermore, there could be some sort of
mechanisms for underperforming students. These could be in the form of peer tutoring
and mentorship programs.
It is equally important to address gender dynamics. To this end, instructors can
help raise students’ awareness of gender dynamics within teams, providing training on
gender sensitivity and inclusivity. Mutual respect and understanding among team
members can be promoted through an open dialogue about biases, stereotypes, and
effective communication patterns. Moreover, there should be regular check-ins and
feedback. Toward this, there needs to be regular progress reviews to assess team
dynamics, identify challenges, and provide feedback on individual and team
performance. Our own anecdotal evidence also points to the benefit of incorporating
peer evaluation as part of assessment to mitigate such problems. Oakley et al. [34]
suggest peer evaluation can be in the form of students assessing the relative
contributions of the team members to the final product or in the form of assessing the
team citizenship of each member, which includes cooperation with the team and
fulfillment of responsibilities.
In the context of the current study itself, a number of caveats need to be made.
First, this study investigated students’ anticipated behaviors in the face of a problem.
That is, the data on their interaction with an underperforming student were collected
using a DCT. Researchers need to be cautioned that DCTs do not collect naturally-
occurring data. However, they do collect data that might be difficult to negotiate in
real-life situations [35]. Future studies could consider supplementing data from a DCT
with at least some naturally-occurring ones. Also, we were able to include a relatively
small number of students from one particular university setting. Therefore, the
Forum for Education Studies 2024, 2(2), 555.
13
conclusions we drew from the data obtained should be approached with caution.
Another area of research may be investigating the conflict-resolution behaviors of
engineers on teams in the field. This would allow engineering departments to devise
curricular activities more akin to real-life situations. As well, a comparison can be
made between students’ attitude towards and experiences of teamwork of teamwork
in different level, which can help understand their development of team skills as they
progress. We also suggest that soft-skills training for engineering students be planned
and executed in collaboration with communication instructors. This would be
compatible with the nature of the engineering discipline requiring constant contact
with a variety of stake-holders in the community. Finally, and no less importantly,
teamwork and conflict-resolution behaviors of professionals who are in different
disciplines but working together could be compared.
Author contributions: Conceptualization, TD and İB; methodology, TD; validation,
TD; formal analysis, TD; investigation, TD and İB; resources, TD; data curation, İB;
writing—original draft, TD; writing—review and editing, TD and İB; visualization,
TD; supervision, TD; project administration, TD and İB. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Conflict of interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Imhonopi D, Urim UM. Gender, teamwork and management: A glimpse into the Nigerian Situation. Journal of Research in
National Development. 2012; 10(3): 103-111.
2. Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). 2018-2019 criteria for accrediting engineering programs.
Available online: https://www.abet.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/E001-18-19-EAC-Criteria-11-29-17.pdf (accessed on
12 March 2023).
3. Chowdhury T, Murzi H. Literature review: Exploring teamwork in engineering education. 8th Research in Engineering
Education Symposium: Making Connections, Cape Town, South Africa.
4. Tucker R, Abbasi N. Bad Attitudes: why design students dislike teamwork. Journal of Learning Design. 2016; 9(1): 1. doi:
10.5204/jld.v9i1.227
5. Wolfe J, Powel B, Schlisserman S, Kirshon A. Teamwork in engineering undergraduate classes. What problems do students
experience? Paper presented at ASEE’s 123rd Annual Conference & Exposition, LA; 2016.
6. Wolfe J, Powell E. Biases in interpersonal communication: How engineering students perceive gender typical speech acts in
teamwork. Journal of Engineering Education. 2009; 98(1): 5-16. doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2009.tb01001.x
7. Schirato T, Yell S. Communication and culture. SAGE; 2000.
8. Bear JB, Woolley AW. The role of gender in team collaboration and performance. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews. 2011;
36(2): 146-153. doi: 10.1179/030801811x13013181961473
9. Basow SA, Rubenfeld K. “Troubles talk”: Effects of gender and gender-typing. Sex Roles. 2003; 48(3/4): 183-187.
10. Amelink CT, Creamer EG. Gender differences in elements of the undergraduate experience that influence satisfaction with
the engineering major and the intent to pursue engineering as a career. Journal of Engineering Education. 2010; 99(1): 81-92.
doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb01044.x
11. Samad AA, Rashid, Juridah M, et al. Investigating the implementation of team-based learning in a university level teacher
education course. International Journal of Asian Social Science. 2014; 4(2): 249-257.
12. Avery CM, Walker MA, Murphy EO. Teamwork is an individual skills: Getting your work done when sharing responsibility.
BK. 2001.
13. Payne BK, Monk-Turner E. Students’ perceptions of group projects: the role of race, age, and slacking. College Student
Journal. 2006; 40(1): 132-139.
Forum for Education Studies 2024, 2(2), 555.
14
14. Dawes L, Senadji B. Strategies to engage engineering students in group project work. International Conference on
Engineering Education, Gliwice, Poland. 2010.
15. Deveci T, Ayish N. Personal responsibility and interpersonal communication in a project-based learning environment.
International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research. 2018; 4(1): 1-17. doi: 10.24289/ijsser.331780
16. Dörnyei Z. Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press; 2007.
17. Babbie ER. The practice of social research, 14th ed. Cengage Learning; 2016.
18. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006; 3(2): 77-101. doi:
10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
19. Jamieson MK, Govaart GH, Pownall M. Reflexivity in quantitative research: A rationale and beginner’s guide. Social and
Personality Psychology Compass. 2023; 17(4). doi: 10.1111/spc3.12735
20. Hendricks C. Improving schools through action research. Allyn Bacon; 2006.
21. Beddoes K. Interdisciplinary teamwork artefacts and practices: A typology for promoting successful teamwork in
engineering education. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education. 2020; 25(2): 133-141. doi:
10.1080/22054952.2020.1836753
22. Deichmann D, Jensen M. I can do that alone…or not? How idea generators juggle between the pros and cons of teamwork.
Strategic Management Journal. 2017; 39(2): 458-475. doi: 10.1002/smj.2696
23. Meier KS. Gender barriers to communication. Available online: https://work.chron.com/gender-barriers-communication-
6858.html (accessed on 12 March 2023).
24. Pfaff E, Huddleston P. Does it matter if i hate teamwork? What impacts student attitudes toward teamwork. Journal of
Marketing Education. 2003; 25(1): 37-45. doi: 10.1177/0273475302250571
25. Kirstein KD. The effect of cultural dimensions on the development of intra-team trust in global virtual teams. Distributed
Team Collaboration in Organizations. Published online 2011: 64-81. doi: 10.4018/978-1-60960-533-9.ch005
26. Deveci T. Freshman students’ emotional intelligence and team-work satisfaction levels. A comparative study: Gender and
nationality. Yuksekogretim Dergisi. 2015; 5(1): 35-43. doi: 10.2399/yod.15.007
27. Olshtain E, Weinbach L. Interlanguage features of the speech act of complaining. interlanguage pragmatics. Published online
August 5, 1993: 108-122. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780195066029.003.0006
28. Reisinger Y, Turner L. A cultural analysis of Japanese tourists: Challenges for tourism marketers. European Journal of
Marketing. 1999; 33(11/12): 1203-1227. doi: 10.1108/03090569910292348
29. Al Omari J. Understanding Arab culture: A practical cross-cultural guide to working in the Arab world. How To Books.
2008.
30. Staines G, Tavris C, Jayaratne TE. The queen bee syndrome. PsycEXTRA Dataset. Published online 1974. doi:
10.1037/e400562009-003
31. Tajfel H, Turner JC. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: Austin WG, Worchel S (editors). The social psychology
of intergroup relations. Brooks/Cole; 1979. pp. 33-37.
32. Ridgeway CL. Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern world. Oxford University Press; 2011.
33. Rudman LA, Glick P. Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues. 2001;
57(4): 743-762. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00239
34. Oakley B, Felder, Richard M, et al. Turning student groups into effective teams. Journal of Student Centered Learning. 2004;
2(1): 9-34.
35. Hartford BS, Bardovi-Harlig K. Experimental and observational data in the study of interlanguage pragmatics. Pragmatics
and Language Learning. 1992; 3: 33-52.
