The Social Consequences of Design and Development Teams

Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, Third Edition

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 647-658

  Blasi, Laura ^a   Fiore, Stephen M ^a   Hedberg, John ^b   Schmid, Richard F ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA   (United States)

^b MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c Systematic Reviews Project Manager Centre for the Study of Learning and Performance   (Canada)

Author keywords

Analytical science: Within this perspective researchers aim to develop, test, and justify theories (D Anjou, 2004; Hevner et al., 2004; Klabbers, 2003; Simon, 1996; van Aken, 2004); see design science and situated science.; Design and development team: The group of people and skill sets involved in the research based development of artifacts and systems in education.; Design in the large (DIL): Refers to the goal of changing existing situations into preferred ones (Klabbers, 2003); see design in the small (DIS).; Design in the small (DIS): Refers to the design of a specific innovation (Klabbers, 2003); see design in the large (DIL).; Design science: Within this perspective researchers aim to build and evaluate artifacts for welldefined contexts of use (D Anjou, 2004; Hevner et al., 2004; Klabbers, 2003; Simon, 1996; van Aken, 2004); see analytical science and situated science.; Knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs): Used in the traditional approach for specifying (team) competencies; recent research now expands the skills beyond those specifically attributed to the team task to include psychomotor and cognitive competencies (Cannon Bowers et al., 1995).; Shared mental models: Crucial in the work of a team as members of the team need to share an accurate model of the problem to be addressed and the associated task to assess the problem, determine their own roles and responsibilities, and coordinate efforts over time (Cannon Bowers et al., 1995).; Situated science: A perspective in which the scientific inquiry and attitude are carried into (instead of applied to) the field of the project and of practice, modifying each other over time as the project unfolds (Findeli, 2001; Simon, 1996); see analytical science and design science.; Team Evolution and Maturation (TEAM) model: Offers stages that have been observed in team performance that take into account time, experience, and training (Morgan et al., 1998).; Transactional leader: Exerts influence by setting goals, clarifying desired outcomes, providing feedback, and exchanging rewards and recognition for accomplishments; one of two leadership styles that hold the potential for more effective team performance, moving away from a traditional top down directive approach (Bass, 1985; Sosik et al., 1997); see transformational leaders.; Transformational leader: Exerts influence by broadening and elevating followers goals and providing them with the confidence to go beyond minimally acceptable expectations specified in the exchange; one of two leadership styles that hold the potential for more effective team performance, moving away from a traditional top down directive approach (Bass, 1985; Sosik et al., 1997); see transactional leaders.

Indexed keywords

EID: 79959248474     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203880869-53     Document Type: Chapter

References (97)

1. Abrami, P., Savage, R. S., Wade, A., and Hipps, G. (2005). Using Technology to Help Children to Learn to Read and Write. Keynote address to the Children’s Learning in a Digital World Conference. August 19-20, Brock University, Ontario, Canada.
2. Adams, M. (1990). Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning About Print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3. Badash, L. (2005). American physicists, nuclear weapons in World War II, and social responsibility. Phys. Perspect., 7(2), 138-149.
4. Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
5. Barak, M., Maymon, T., and Harel, G. (1999). Teamwork in modern organizations: implications for technology education. Int. J. Technol. Design Educ., 9. 85-101.*
6. Barron, L., Bransford, J., Goin, L., Goldman, E., Goldman, S., Hasselbring, T., Pellegrino, J., Rewey, K., Sherwood, R., and Vye, N. (1993). The Jasper experiment: using video to furnish real-world problem-solving contexts. Arith. Teacher, 40(8), 474-479.
7. Barron, B. J. S., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L. et al. (1998). Doing with understanding: lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning. J. Learn. Sci., 7(3), 271-311.
8. Barry, D. (1991). Managing the bossless team: lessons in distributed leadership. Org. Dynam., 20(1), 31-47.*
9. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: Free Press.
10. Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications. New York: Free Press.
11. Blasi, L. and Alfonso, B. (2006). Increasing the transfer of simulation technology from RandD into school settings. Simul. Gaming, 37(2), 245-267.*
12. Blumenfeld, P., Fishman, B. J., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., and Soloway, E. (2000). Creating usable innovations in systemic reform: scaling up technology-embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educ. Psychol., 35(3), 149-164.
13. Bowers, C. A. (1988). The Cultural Dimensions of Educational Computing: Understanding the Non-Neutrality of Technology. New York: Teachers College Press.*
14. Bowers, C. A. (2000). Let Them Eat Data: How Computers Affect Education, Cultural Diversity, and the Prospects of Ecological Sustainability. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press.
15. Bransford, J. D., Sherwood, R. D., Hasselbring, T. S., Kinzer, C. K., and Williams, S. M. (1990). Anchored instruction: why we need it and how technology can help. In Cognition, Education, and Multimedia, edited by D. Nix and R. Spiro, pp. 115-142. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16. Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., Salas, E., and Volpe, C. E. (1995). Defining competencies and establishing team training requirements. In Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations, edited by R. Guzzo and E. Salas, pp. 333-380. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.*
17. Centre for the Study of Learning and Performance (CSLP). (2006). Alphie’s Alley. Montreal: Department of Education, Concordia University (http://doe.concordia.ca/cslp/).
18. Chiang, I. R. and Mookerjee, V. S. (2004). Improving software team productivity. Commun. ACM, 47(5), 89-93.*
19. Clark, R. E., Ed. (2001). Learning from Media. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
20. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV). (1992). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: theory, program description, and assessment data. Educ. Psychol., 27(3), 291-315.
21. Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and Machines: The Classroom Use of Technology Since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.
22. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23. D’Anjou, P. (2004). Theoretical and methodological elements for integrating ethics as a foundation into the education of professional and design disciplines. Sci. Eng. Ethics, 10(2), 211-218.
24. Dick, W., Carey, L., and Carey, J. O. (2005). The Systematic Design of Instruction, 6th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
25. Donovan, M. S. E., Bransford, J. D. E., and Pellegrino, J. W. E. (1999). How People Learn: Bridging Research and Practice. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.
26. Elbinger, L. (1985). WOZ and The Little Kingdom [book reviews]. Bus. Soc. Rev., 52, 90.
27. Ellul, J. (1964). The Technological Society. New York: Vintage.
28. Ertmer, P. and Quinn, J. (2003). The ID Case Book: Case Studies in Instructional Design, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
29. Faraj, S. A. and Sproull, L. (2000). Coordinating expertise in software development teams. Manage. Sci., 46, 1554-1568.
30. Feltovich, P. J., Spiro, R. J., and Coulson, R. L. (1997). Issues of expert flexibility in contexts characterized by complexity and change. In Expertise in Context: Human and Machine, edited by P. J. Feltovich, K. M. Ford, and R. R. Hoffman, pp. 125-146. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
31. Feltovich, P. J., Hoffman, R. R., Woods, D., and Roesler, A. (2004). Keeping it too simple: how the reductive tendency affects cognitive engineering. IEEE Intell. Syst., 19(3), 90-94.
32. Findeli, A. (2001). Rethinking design education for the 21st century: theoretical, methodological, and ethical discussion. Design Issues, 17(1), 5-17.
33. Fiore, S. M., Salas, E., Cuevas, H. M., and Bowers, C. A. (2003). Distributed coordination space: toward a theory of distributed team process and performance. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci., 4(3/4), 340.*
34. Fishman, B., Soloway, E., Krajcik, J., Marx, R., and Blumenfeld, P. (2001). Creating Scalable and Systemic Technology Innovations for Urban Education. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, April 10-14, Seattle, WA.
35. Fishman, B., Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P., Krajcik, J., and Soloway, E. (2004). Creating a framework for research on systemic technology innovations. J. Learn. Sci., 13(1), 43-76.
36. Gagné, R. M. and Briggs L. J. (1974). Principles of Instructional Design. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
37. Gery, G. (2002). Achieving performance and learning through performance centered systems. Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour., 4(4), 464-478.
38. Goldberg, S. (1992). Inventing a climate of opinion. Isis, 83(3), 429-452.
39. Hall, G. E. and Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in Schools: Facilitating the Process. New York: State University of New York Press.
40. Hedberg, J. and Sims, R. (2001). Speculations on design team interactions. J. Interact. Learn. Res., 12(2/3), 193-208.*
41. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., and Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Q., 28, 75-105.
42. Hipps, G., Abrami, P., Savage, R. S., Cerna, N., and Jorgensen, A. (2005). Abracadabra: research, design, and development of a Web-based early literacy software. In Innovations et tendances en technologies de formation et d’apprentissage: Développement, intégration et évaluation des technologies de formation et d’apprentissage, edited by S. Pierre, pp. 89-112. Quebec: Presses Internationales Polytechnique. Valeurisation de Researches de Quèbec (DIVA).
43. Hoffman, E. J., Kinlaw, C. S., and Kinlaw, D. C. (2001). Developing Superior Project Teams: A Study of the Characteristics of High Performance in Project Teams. Washington, D.C.: NASA (http://www.nasateammates.com/About/findings.pdf).
44. Hughes, J. (2004). Deconstructing the bomb: recent perspectives on nuclear history. Br. J. Hist. Sci., 37(135), 455-464.
45. Hunt, E. and Pellegrino, J. W. (2002). Issues, examples, and challenges in formative assessment. New Dir. Teaching Learn., (89), 73.
46. Jung, D. I. and Sosik, J. J. (1999). Effects of group characteristics on work group performance: a longitudinal investigation. Group Dynam. Theory Res. Pract., 3(4), 279-290.
47. Katzenbach, J. R. and Smith, D. K. (1993). The discipline of teams. Harvard Bus. Rev., 71(2), 111-120.*
48. Klabbers, J. H. G. (2003a). Simulation and gaming: introduction to the art and science of design. Simul. Gaming, 34, 488-494.
49. Klabbers, J. H. G. (2003b). Gaming and simulation: principles of a science of design. Simul. Gaming, 34, 569-591.*
50. Knight, D., Pearce, C. L., Smith, K. G., Olian, J. D., Sims, H. P., Smith, K. A. et al. (1999). Top management team diversity, group process, and strategic consensus. Strat. Manage. J., 20, 445-465.
51. Kolodner, J. L. (1991). The Journal of the Learning Sciences: effecting changes in education. J. Learn. Sci., 1(1), 1.
52. Kozma, R. B. (1994a). A reply: media and methods. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., 42(2), 11-14.
53. Kozma, R. B. (1994b). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., 42(2), 7-19.
54. Kozma, R. B. (2000). Reflections on the state of educational technology research and development. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., 48(1), 5-15.
55. Linebarger, J. M., Janneck, C. D., and Kessler, G. D. (2005). Leaving the world behind: supporting group collaboration patterns in a shared virtual environment for product design. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ., 14(6), 697-719.
56. Linzmayer, O. (1999). Apple Confidential: The Real Story of Apple Computers. San Francisco, CA: No Starch Press.
57. Lipnack, J. and Stamps, J. (2000). Virtual Teams: People Working Across Boundaries with Technology. New York: Wiley.*
58. Manz, C. and Sims, H. P. (1980). Self management as a substitute for leadership: a social learning theory perspective. Acad. Manage. Rev., 5(3), 361-367.
59. McGinn, M. K. and Roth, W. M. (1999). Preparing students for competent scientific practice: implications of recent research in science and technology studies. Educ. Res., 28(3), 14-24.
60. McLaughlin, M. (1990). The RAND change agent study revisited: macro perspectives and micro realities. Educ. Res., 19(9), 11-16.
61. Morgan, Jr., B. B., Salas, E., and Glickman, A. S. (1998). An analysis of team evolution and maturation. J. Gen. Psychol., 120(3), 277-291.*
62. Morris, L., Hulbert, L., and Abrams, D. (2000). An experimental investigation of group members’ perceived influence over leader decisions. Group Dynam. Theory Res. Pract., 4(2), 157-167.
63. Nichols, R. (1987). Concern about Ethics and Ethical Issues among Professors of Instructional Systems Design and Technology, Report Accession Number ED 304 099. Bloomington, IN: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
64. Ocker, R., Fjermestad, J., Hiltz, S. R., and Johnson, K. (1998). Effects of four modes of group communication on the outcomes of software requirements determination. J. Manage. Inform. Syst., 15(1), 99-118.
65. Pellegrino, J. W. (2002). Knowing what students know. Issues Sci. Technol., 19(2), 48.
66. Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. New York: Vintage Books.
67. Preece, J., Rogers, Y., and Sharp, H. (2002). Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
68. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G. et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. J. Learn. Sci., 13(3), 337-386.
69. Reeves, T. C. and Hedberg, J. G. (2003). Interactive Learning Systems Evaluation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
70. Reeves, T. C. and Hedberg, J. G. (2007). Evaluation strategies for open and distributed learning environments. In Flexible Learning in an Information Society, edited by B. Khan, pp. 226-235. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
71. Reigeluth, C. M., Ed. (1999). Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
72. Rhodes, R. (1995). The Making of the Atomic Bomb. New York: Simon and Schuster.
73. Rogers, E. M. (1995). The Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press.
74. Salas, E., Dickinson, T. L., Converse, S. A., and Tannenbaum, S. I. (1992). Toward an understanding of team performance and training. In Teams: Their Training and Performance, edited by R. W. Swezey and E. Salas, pp. 3-29. Norwood, NJ: Albex.
75. Schank, R. C. and Jona, M. Y. (1991). Empowering the student: new perspectives on the design of teaching systems. J. Learn. Sci., 1, 7-35.
76. Sarewitz, D. (2000). Science Policy Present: Where Is the Frontier? Paper presented at Gordon Research Conference, New Frontiers in Science and Technology Policy, August 20-25, Plymouth, NH.
77. Schittekatte, M. (1996). Facilitating information exchange in small decision-making groups. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol., 26(4), 537-556.
78. Schmid, R. F., Tucker, B., Jorgensen, A., Abrami, P. C., Lacroix, G., and Nicolaidou, I. (2006). Tutor-Based Data on Implementation Fidelity of SFA Program Using Technology Versus No Technology. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, April 8-12, San Francisco, CA.
79. Schneider, R. M. and Krajcik, J. (1999). The Role of Educative Curriculum Materials in Reforming Science Education. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
80. Singer, J., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J., and Chambers, J. C. (2000). Designing Curriculum to Meet National Standards. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
81. Simon, H. A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
82. Slavin, R. E. and Madden, N. A., Eds. (2001). One Million Children: Success for All. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
83. Slavin, R. E., Chambers, B., Madden, N., Gifford, R., Abrami, P. C., Tucker, B., Therrien, M., and Cheung, A. (2006). Technology Infusion in Success for All: Reading Outcomes for Tutored and Nontutored First Graders. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, April 8-12, San Francisco, CA.
84. Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., and Kahai, S. S. (1997). Effects of leadership style and anonymity on group potency and effectiveness in a group decision support system environment. J. Appl. Psychol., 82(1), 89-103.
85. Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, R. P., Jacobson, M. J., and Coulson, R. L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation, edited by T. M. Duffy and D. H. Jonassen, pp. 57-76. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
86. Stasser, G. (1992). Pooling of unshared information during group discussion. In Group Process and Productivity, edited by S. Worchel, W. Wood, and J. A. Simpson, pp. 48-68. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.*
87. Stewart, G. L. and Manz, C. C. (1995). Leadership for selfmanaging work teams: a typology and integrative model. Hum. Relat., 48(7), 747-770.
88. Stoll, C. (1999). High-Tech Heretic. New York: Anchor Books.
89. Talsma, V. L. and Krajcik, J. S. (2002). Comparing Apples and Oranges: Using the National Science Education Standards as a Tool When Assessing Scientific Understandings. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Annual Meeting, April 6-10, New Orleans, LA.
90. Tanskanen, T., Buhanist, P., and Kostama, H. (1998). Exploring the diversity of teams. Int. J. Prod. Econ., 56-57, 611-619.
91. The Learning Technology Center. (1992). What Is the Jasper Series? Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University (http://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/projects/funded/jasper/intro/Jasperintro.html).
92. Tuckman, B. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychol. Bull., 63, 384-399.
93. van Aken, J. E. (2004). Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: the quest for field-tested and grounded technological rules. J. Manage. Stud., 41, 219-246.
94. Vye, N. J., Goldman, S. R., Voss, J. F., Hmelo, C., and Williams, S. (1997). Complex mathematical problem solving by individuals and dyads. Cogn. Instruct., 15(4), 435-484.
95. Williams, R. H. (1999). Atomic spaces: living on the Manhattan Project. J. Am. Hist., 85(4), 1653-1654.
96. Wolf, G. (1996). Steve Jobs: the next insanely great thing. Wired Interview, 4(2), http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.02/jobs_pr.html.
97. Wood, R. E. (1986). Task complexity: definition of the construct. Org. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process., 37, 60-82.*