Interdisciplinary teamwork artefacts and practices: a typology for promoting successful teamwork in engineering education

被引：4
作者：
Beddoes K. [1 ]
机构：
[1] Project Director, College of Engineering Dean’s Office, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA
来源：
Beddoes, Kacey (kacey@sociologyofengineering.org) | 1600年 / Taylor and Francis Ltd.卷 / 25期
基金：
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词：
artefacts; ethnography; Interdisciplinary; shared mental model; teamwork;
D O I：
10.1080/22054952.2020.1836753
中图分类号：
学科分类号：
摘要：
Professional organisations and engineering educators in Australia recognise that interdisciplinary teamwork skills are increasingly important for engineering graduates to develop. However, knowledge and resources for how best to develop those skills is underdeveloped. This article addresses that gap by introducing a new conceptual framework and typology for promoting successful interdisciplinary teamwork. The analysis is based upon several long-term ethnographic studies of interdisciplinary student teams. The conceptual framework is called Interdisciplinary Teamwork Artefacts and Practices (ITAP), and the six types of ITAPs are: (1) orienting, (2) operating, (3) levelling, (4) proposing, (5) aligning, and (6) structuring. This typology can be used to help instructors and students alike navigate the challenges of interdisciplinary teamwork while maximising interdisciplinary learning outcomes. ©, Engineers Australia.
引用
收藏
页码：133 / 141
页数：8
相关论文
共 47 条
  • [21] Golde C.M., Gallagher H., The Challenges of Conducting Interdisciplinary Research in Traditional Doctoral Programs, Ecosystems, 2, 4, pp. 281-285, (1999)
  • [22] Gooch J.C., The Dynamics and Challenges of Interdisciplinary Collaboration: A Case Study of ‘Cortical Depth of Bench’ in Group Proposal Writing, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48, 2, pp. 177-190, (2005)
  • [23] Graham T., Philosophical Perspective on the Mass Extinction Debates?, Biology & Philosophy, 14, 1, pp. 143-150, (1999)
  • [24] Hadgraft R., Kolmos A., Emerging Learning Environments in Engineering Education, Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 25, pp. 3-16, (2020)
  • [25] Heemskerk M., Wilson K., Pavao-Zuckerman M., Conceptual Models as Tools for Communication across Disciplines, Conservation Ecology, 7, 3, pp. 1-13, (2003)
  • [26] Journet D., Interdisciplinary Discourse and Boundary Rhetoric, Written Communication, 10, 4, pp. 510-541, (1993)
  • [27] Kozlowski S.W.J., Ilgen R.D., Enhancing the Effectiveness of Work Groups and Teams, Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 3, pp. 77-124, (2006)
  • [28] Langan-Fox J., Anglim J., Wilson J.R., Mental Models, Team Mental Models, and Performance: Process, Development, and Future Directions, Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 14, 4, pp. 331-352, (2004)
  • [29] Lee C.P., Boundary Negotiating Artifacts: Unbinding the Routine of Boundary Objects and Embracing Chaos in Collaborative Work, Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 16, 3, pp. 307-339, (2007)
  • [30] Lee M., Johnson T.E., Understanding the Effects of Team Cognition Associated with Complex Engineering Tasks: Dynamics of Shared Mental Models, Task-SMM, and Team-SMM, Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21, 3, pp. 73-95, (2008)
12345