Russian Psychological Issues PsyJournals.ru
OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS
JournalsTopicsAuthorsEditor's Choice For AuthorsAbout PsyJournals.ruContact Us

  Previous issue (2019. Vol. 8, no. 2)

Journal of Modern Foreign Psychology

Publisher: Moscow State University of Psychology and Education

ISSN (online): 2304-4977

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17759/jmfp

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Started in 2012

Published quarterly

Free of fees
Open Access Journal

 

Teambuilding in the student audience: pros and cons 2210

Ekimova V.I., Doctor of Philology, Department of Extreme Psychology, Moscow State University of Psychology and Education , Moscow, Russia, iropse@mail.ru
Abstract
Teambuilding is one of the most promising and effective methods of personnel management, the most sought after in the business world. Up to date, the characteristics of an effective team and factors influencing the efficiency of team activities in separate professional performances are studied in most details. This article provides an overview of the researches on students’ attitudes to methods of team-building applied in the area of education. We provide the comparative analysis of the factors that contribute to or hinder the organization of team activities and the ones, arousing positive attitudes of the students. We also indicate the perspectives of expanding and improving the application of team building in the educational process

Keywords: teambuilding, team/joint activity, collaborative methods, attitudes, team roles, leadership, free-riding

Column: Social psychology

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17759/jmfp.2015040203

For Reference

References
  1. Gudvin Dzh. Issledovanie v psikhologii: Metody i planirovanie. SPb.: Piter, 2004, 558 p.
  2. A study of students’ attitudes towards cooperative learning. Akhtar K. [et al.]. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2012, vol. 2, no. 11, pp. 141–147.
  3. Aggarwal A., Woolley A.W. Do you see what I see? The effect of members’ cognitive styles on team processes and errors in task execution. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 2012. no. 122 (1), pp. 92–99.
  4. Ashraf M. A critical look at the use of group projects as a pedagogical tool. Journal of Education for Busines, 2004, vol. 79, no. 4, pp. 213–216. doi: 10.3200/JOEB.79.4.213-216.
  5. Bacon D.R., Stewart K.A., Silver W.S. Lessons from the best and worst student team experiences: How a teacher can make a difference. Journal of Management Education, 1999, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 467–488.
  6. Baron R.S., Kerr N.L. Group process, group decision, group action. 2nd ed. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. 2003. 260 p.
  7. Bolton M.K. The role of coaching in student teams: A ‘just-in-time’ approach to learning. Journal of Management Education, 1999, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 233–250. doi: 10.1177/105256299902300302.
  8. Brooks C.M., Ammons J.L. Free riding in group projects and the effects of timing, frequency, and specificity of criteria in peer assessments. Journal of Education for Business, 2003, vol. 78, no. 5, pp. 268–272. doi: 10.1080/08832320309598613.
  9. Cannon-Bowers J.A., Bowers C. Team development and functioning. APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology Vol. 1. Building and developing the organization. S. Zedeck (Ed.). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, 2010, pp. 597–650.
  10. Does team building work? Klein C. [et al.]. Small Group Research, 2009, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 181–222. DOI: 10.1177/1046496408328821.
  11. Ettington D., Camp R. Facilitating transfer of skills between group projects and work teams. Journal of Management Education, 2002, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 356–379. doi: 10.1177/105256290202600404.
  12. Evidence for the collective intelligence factor in the performance of human group / Woolley A.W. [et al.]. Science, 2010, vol. 330. no. 6004, pp. 686–688. doi: 10.1126/science.1193147.
  13. Fredrick T.A. Facilitating better teamwork: analysing the challenges and strategies of classroom-based collaboration. Business Communication Quarterly, 2008, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 439–455. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1080569908325860. doi: 10.1177/1080569908325860.
  14. Haberyan A. Team-Based learning in an Industrial: Organizational Psychology Course. North American Journal of Psychology, 2007, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 143–152.
  15. Hansen R. Benefits and problems with student teams: suggestions for improving team projects. Journal of Education for Business, 2006, vol. 82, no.1, pp. 11–19. doi: 10.3200/JOEB.82.1.11-19.
  16. Hare A.P. Groups, teams, and social interaction: theories and applications. New York: Praeger. 1993. 177 p.
  17. Holloway J.H. Student teamwork. Educational Leadership, 2004, vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 91–92.
  18. Michaelsen L.K., Knight A.B., Fink L.D. Team-based learning : A Transformative Use of Small Groups.Westpost: Greenwood Publishing Group. 2002, 288 p.
  19. Mullen B., Driskell J.E., Salas E. Meta-analysis and the study of group dynamics. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1998, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 213–229. doi: 10.1037/1089-2699.2.4.213.
  20. Paff E., Huddleston P. Does it matters if I hate teamwork? What impacts student attitudes toward teamwork? Journal of Marketing Education, 2003, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 37–45. doi: 10.1177/0273475302250571.
  21. Pentland A. The new science of building great team. Harward Business Review. Harvard: Harvard Business School Pub 2012, pp. 62–70.
  22. Pineda R.C., Barger B., Lerner L.D. Exploring differences in student perceptions of teamwork: the case of U.S. and Lithuanian students. Journal of International Business & Cultural Studies, 2009, vol. 1, pp. 1–9.
  23. Robbins T.L., Fredendall L.D. Correlates of team success in higher education. Journal of Social Psychology, 2001, vol. 141, no. 1, pp. 135–136. doi: 10.1080/00224540109600534.
  24. Rudawska A., Szarek M. Students’ attitudes towards teamwork and their group effectiveness. E-mentor, 2014, vol. 3, no. 55, pp. 12–21. doi: 10.15219/em55.1104.
  25. Sustaining faculty organizational development through teambuilding activities. Ismail I.A. [et al.]. The journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, 2008, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 201–211.
  26. Thompson D., Anitsal I., Barrett H. Attitudes toward teamwork in higher education: a comparative study of religiously affiliated universities and secular-based universities. Allied Academies International Conference. Academy of Educational Leadership. Proceedings, 2008, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 86–98.
  27. Undergraduate marketing students group projects and teamwork: The good, the bad, and the ugly. McCorkle D.E. [et al.]. Journal of Marketing Education, 1999, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 106–117. doi: 10.1177/0273475399212004.
  28. Underwood J.D.M. Student attitude towards socially acceptable and unacceptable group working practices. British Journal of Psychology, 2003, vol. 94, no. 3, pp. 319–337. doi: 10.1348/000712603767876253.
  29. Wheeler D., Stoller J.K. Teamwork, teambuilding and leadership in respiratory and health care. Canadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy, 2011, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 6–11.
  30. Wolfe A.M. Student attitudes toward team projects. Midwest Business Administration Association (MBAA) International Spring Conference. Chicago, Illinois: Marketing Management Association. 2008. pp. 119–126.
comments powered by Disqus
 
About PsyJournals.ru

© 2007–2019 Portal of Russian Psychological Publications. All rights reserved

PsyJournals.ru in Russian

Publisher: Moscow State University of Psychology and Education

Catalogue of academic journals in psychology & education MSUPE

Creative Commons License

RSS Psyjournals at facebook Psyjournals at Twitter Psyjournals at Youtube Яндекс.Метрика