Interdisciplinary Team-Based Learning: An Integrated Opportunity Recognition and Evaluation Model for Teaching Business,Engineering and Design Students
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online April, 2021
Interdisciplinary Team-Based Learning: An Integrated Opportunity Recognition and Evaluation Model for Teaching Business,Engineering and Design Students
This paper describes a pedagogical framework and a set of team-based learning (TBL) activities which can be applied to an interdisciplinary course comprised of a mix of engineering, design, and business students. The goal of the team-based learning (TBL) activities is to help students to appreciate both the benefits and the challenges of working in interdisciplinary teams. To enhance their interdisciplinary collaboration skills, students engage in a series of knowledge sharing and knowledge integration activities, based on the Jigsaw technique, a team-based learning methodology. These activities enable the students to recognize and reconcile their disciplinary differences and biases, which arise because of the cognitive diversity of the team. Students are assigned to interdisciplinary teams to identify and prototype an entrepreneurial opportunity. By the end of these activities, students are able to incorporate the perspectives of all three disciplines to develop an integrated team mental model (TMM) of the opportunity recognition and opportunity evaluation process.
ArdichviliA.CardozoR.RayS. (2003).
A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. Journal of Business Venturing,
18(1), 105–123.
2.
AronsonE.PatnoeS. (2010). Cooperation in the classroom: The jigsaw method. Pinter & Martin.
3.
BaronR. A. (2006).
Opportunity recognition as pattern recognition: How entrepreneurs “connect the dots” to identify new business opportunities. Academy of Management Perspectives,
20(1), 104–119.
4.
BeckmanC. M. (2006).
The influence of founding team company affiliations on firm behavior. Academy of Management Journal,
49(4), 741–758.
5.
ChowdhuryS. (2005).
Demographic diversity for building an effective entrepreneurial team: Is it important?Journal of Business Venturing,
20(6), 727–746.
6.
CooperA. C.DailyC. M. (2000). (1997)‘Entrepreneurial Teams’. In D. L. Sexton and R. W. Smilor (Eds.), Entrepreneurship 2000 (pp. 127–150). Uppstart.
7.
CorbettA. C. (2005).
Experiential learning within the process of opportunity identification and exploitation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
29(4), 473–491.
8.
CroninM. A.WeingartL. R. (2007).
Representational gaps, information processing, and conflict in functionally diverse teams. Academy of Management Review,
32(3), 761–773.
9.
EnsleyM. D.PearsonA.PearceC. L. (2003).
Top management team process, shared leadership, and new venture performance: A theoretical model and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review,
13(2), 329–346.
10.
FayolleA.GaillyB. (2008).
From craft to science: Teaching models and learning processes in entrepreneurship education. Journal of European Industrial Training,
32(7), 569–593.
11.
FietJ. O. (2001).
The pedagogical side of entrepreneurship theory. Journal of Business Venturing,
16(2), 101–117.
12.
FixsonS. K. (2009).
Teaching innovation through interdisciplinary courses and programmes in product design and development: An analysis at 16 US schools. Creativity and Innovation Management,
18(3), 199–208.
13.
FruchterR. (2001).
Dimensions of teamwork education. International Journal of Engineering Education,
17(4/5), 426–430.
14.
García-RodríguezF. J.Gil-SotoE.Ruiz-RosaI. (2012).
New methods in university entrepreneurship education: A multidisciplinary teams approach. Creative Education,
3(6), 878–883.
15.
GartnerW. B. (1985).
A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation. Academy of Management Review,
10(4), 696–706.
16.
HaaseH.LautenschlägerA. (2011).
The ‘teachability dilemma’ of entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
7(2), 145–162.
17.
HarperD. A. (2008).
Towards a theory of entrepreneurial teams. Journal of Business Venturing,
23(6), 613–626.
18.
KlotzA. C.HmieleskiK. M.BradleyB. H.BusenitzL. W. (2014).
New venture teams: A review of the literature and roadmap for future research. Journal of Management,
40(1), 226–255.
19.
KnockaertM.UcbasaranD.WrightM.ClarysseB. (2011).
The relationship between knowledge transfer, top management team composition, and performance: The case of science–based entrepreneurial firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
35(4), 777–803.
LüthjeC.PrüglR. (2006).
Preparing business students for co-operation in multi-disciplinary new venture teams: Empirical insights from a business-planning course. Technovation,
26(2), 211–219.
22.
ManT. W. Y.LauT.ChanK. F. (2002).
The competitiveness of small and medium enterprises: A conceptualization with focus on entrepreneurial competencies. Journal of Business Venturing,
17(2), 123–142.
23.
MenoldJ.JablokowK.SimpsonT. (2017).
Prototype for X (PFX): A holistic framework for structuring prototyping methods to support engineering design. Design Studies,
50, 70–112.
24.
MichaelsenL. K.SweetM. (2008).
The essential elements of team‐based learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning,
2008(116), 7–27.
25.
MohammedS.KlimoskiR.RentschJ. R. (2000).
The measurement of team mental models: We have no shared schema. Organizational Research Methods,
3(2), 123–165.
26.
NeckH. M.CorbettA. C. (2018).
The scholarship of teaching and learning entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy,
1(1), 8–41.
27.
RastkhizS. E. A.DehkordiA. M.FarsiJ. Y.AzarA. (2019).
A new approach to evaluating entrepreneurial opportunities. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 26(1), 67–84.
28.
ReevesP. M.ZappeS. E.FollmerD. J. (2019).
A comparison of the types of problems encountered by entrepreneurial students and successful professional entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy,
2(3), 214–244.
29.
Rosendahl HuberL.SloofR.van PraagM. (2014). Jacks-of-all-trades? The effect of balanced skills on team performance, In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2014, No. 1, p. 16024). Briarcliff Manor, NY: Academy of Management.
30.
Sargis RousselC.DeltourF. (2012).
Beyond cross-functional teams: Knowledge integration during organizational projects and the role of social capital. Knowledge Management Research & Practice,
10(2), 128–140.
31.
SchjoedtL.KrausS. (2009).
Entrepreneurial teams: Definition and performance factors. Management Research News,
32(6), 513–524.
32.
ShaneS.VenkataramanS. (2000).
The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review,
25(1), 217–226.
33.
SiegelD. S.RenkoM. (2012).
The role of market and technological knowledge in recognizing entrepreneurial opportunities. Management Decision,
50(5), 797–816.
34.
Standish‐KuonT.RiceM. P. (2002).
Introducing engineering and science students to entrepreneurship: Models and influential factors at six American universities. Journal of Engineering Education,
91(1), 33–39.
35.
SteffensP.TerjesenS.DavidssonP. (2012).
Birds of a feather get lost together: New venture team composition and performance. Small Business Economics,
39(3), 727–743.
36.
ThursbyM. C.FullerA. W.ThursbyJ. (2009).
An integrated approach to educating professionals for careers in innovation. Academy of Management Learning & Education,
8(3), 389–405.
37.
WoodM. S.WilliamsD. W. (2014).
Opportunity evaluation as rule‐based decision making. Journal of Management Studies,
51(4), 573–602.
