The scientist-practitioner model, upon which many academic programs (including coursework on teams) are built, suggests that education should focus on more than just rote knowledge of a topic. The training literature also suggests that education must go beyond information to include demonstration, practice, and feedback. Accordingly, we suggest that educators teaching courses on teams should provide students not only with declarative knowledge regarding the science of teams, but also with practical experiences that will develop skilled team scientist-practitioners. We describe an example of how scientific team training was incorporated through experiential learning activities into a graduate-level psychology course on work teams. We conclude with a discussion of how this example represents an innovative approach to the pedagogy of teams, how our methods could be applied to other courses on small groups, and how to further the incorporation of validated team science into the classroom.
AguinisH.KraigerK. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and teams, organizations, and society. In FiskeS. T.SchacterD. L.SternbergR. (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 60, pp. 451-474). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163505
2.
BellS. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 595-615. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.595
3.
JonesB. F.WuchtyS.UzziB. (2008). Multi-university research teams: Shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science. Science, 322, 1259-1262. doi:10.1126/science.1158357
4.
JonesJ. L.MehrS. L. (2007). Foundations and assumptions of the scientist-practitioner model. American Behavioral Scientist, 50, 766-771. doi:10.1177/0002764206296454
5.
JudgeW. Q.WeberT.Muller-KahleM. I. (2012). What are the correlates of interdisciplinary research impact? The case of corporate governance research. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11, 82-98. doi:10.5465/amle.2010.0191
6.
KozlowskiS. W. J.BellB. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In BormanW. C.IlgenD. R.KlimoskiR. J. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 333-375). New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.
7.
KraigerK. (2003). Perspectives on training and development. In BormanW. C.IlgenD. R.KlimoskiR. J. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 171-192). New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.
8.
LiJ.HambrickD. C. (2005). Factional groups: A new vantage on demographic faultlines, conflict, and disintegration in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 794-813. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2005.18803923
9.
MarksM. A.MathieuJ. E.ZaccaroS. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356-376. doi:10.2307/259182
10.
MarksM. A.SabellaM. J.BurkeC. S.ZaccaroS. J. (2002). The impact of cross-training on team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 3-13. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.3
11.
MathieuJ. E.MaynardM. T.RappT.GilsonL. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34, 410-476. doi:10.1177/0149206308316061
12.
MathieuJ. E.RappT. L. (2009). Laying the foundation for successful team performance trajectories: The roles of team charters and performance strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 90-103. doi:10.1037/a0013257
13.
MorelandR. L. (1999). Transactive memory: Learning who knows what in work groups and organizations. In ThompsonL.MessickD.LevineJ. (Eds.), Shared cognition in organizations: The management of knowledge (pp. 3-31). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
14.
MorelandR. L.McMinnJ. G. (2010). Group reflexivity and performance. In ThyeS. R.LawlerE. J. (Eds.), Advances in group processes (pp. 63-95). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.
15.
PrinceC.SalasE. (1993). Training research for teamwork in the military aircrew. In WienerE. L.KankiB. G.HelmreichR. L. (Eds.), Cockpit resource management (pp. 337-366). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
16.
RamsdenP. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London, UK: Routledge.
17.
SalasE.Cannon-BowersJ. (2001). The science of training. In FiskeS. T.SchacterD. L.Zahn-WaxlerC. (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 52, pp. 471-499). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.471
18.
SalasE.CookeN. J.RosenM. A. (2008). On teams, teamwork, and team performance: Discoveries and developments. Human Factors, 50, 540-547. doi:10.1518/001872008X288457
19.
SalasE.TannenbaumS.KraigerK.Smith-JentschK. (2012). The science of training and development in organizations: What matters in practice. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13, 74-101. doi:10.1177/1529100612436661
20.
ShufflerM. L.DiazGranadosD.SalasE. (2011). There’s a science for that: Team development interventions in organizations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 365-372. doi:10.1177/0963721411422054
21.
SitzmannT.BrownK. G.CasperW. J.ElyK.ZimmermanR. D. (2008). A review and meta-analysis of the nomological network of trainee reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 280-295. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.280
22.
Smith-JentschK. A.Cannon-BowersJ. A.TannenbaumS. I.SalasE. (2008). Guided team self-correction: Impacts on team mental models, processes, and effectiveness. Small Group Research, 39, 303-327. doi:10.1177/1046496408317794
23.
SundstromE. (1999). The challenges of supporting work team effectiveness. In SundstromE. (Ed.), Supporting work team effectiveness (pp. 3-23). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
