Elsevier

Educational Research Review

Volume 10, December 2013, Pages 1-12
Educational Research Review

Review
Towards a contextualized model of team learning processes and outcomes

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.04.001Get rights and content

Highlights

  • We develop a context-specific and dynamic team learning model.

  • The two-step approach determines team features and their consequences for team learning.

  • On-scene-command-teams (OSCTs) have task and team knowledge as team learning outcome.

  • During meetings OSCTs use other team learning processes than in between.

  • The OSCT team learning model fuels our understanding of intra-crisis team learning.

Abstract

Existing review studies on team learning present integrated models, suggesting general applicability to any team. However, such models neglect the influence of the team type and its developmental stages. These context-specific characteristics may create variety in team learning processes and outcomes among teams. In this theoretical contribution, we revisit the most recent generic team learning model developed by Decuyper, Dochy, and Van den Bossche (2010). Taking this model as a starting point, we present a context-specific model for ad hoc multidisciplinary emergency management teams. The developed model can fuel future research on team learning in teams with comparable characteristics. It supports the development of tools to evaluate them and offers the rationale for training programs aiming to increase the quality of their interventions.

Introduction

In the past years, a vast amount of studies have aimed to offer insights into team learning (e.g. Decuyper et al., 2010, Edmondson et al., 2007, Ellis et al., 2003, Jehn and Rupert, 2007, Knapp, 2010, Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006, London et al., 2005, Wilson et al., 2007). The number of publications on team learning has expanded since 1990 (1990–1999: 178 references, 2000–2007: 214 references; Decuyper et al., 2010). In general, team learning is defined as “a compilation of team-level processes that circularly generate change or improvement for teams, team members, organizations, etc.” (Decuyper et al., 2010, p. 128). It is a dynamic behavioral process of interaction and exchange among team members (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). Through these processes individuals acquire, share, and combine knowledge in order to adapt and improve (Edmondson, 1999). As a compilation, team learning consists of changing combinations of different types of processes. Working circularly means that these processes lead to certain outcomes which in turn influence these processes. Team learning differs from individual learning in that the ability to acquire knowledge and skills is collectively shared by team members and the team learning outcome is collectively available and used (Ellis et al., 2003, Jehn and Rupert, 2007).

Team learning is distinct from teamwork, which is a set of interrelated thoughts, actions and feelings of each individual team member that are needed if the team is to really function as a team (Salas, Sims, & Burke, 2005). Teamwork is about cooperative interactions that facilitate dealing with task objectives and realizing coordinated, adaptive performance. During this cooperation, team members use knowledge. It is a resource that helps to understand how team members are able to combine their (individual) knowledge to improve team effectiveness (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). One could say that team learning refers to teams as a learning unit while teamwork refers to teams as a working unit (Decuyper et al., 2010). A team can be defined as “a collection of individuals who are interdependent in their tasks, who share responsibility for outcomes, who see themselves and who are seen by others as an intact social entity embedded in one or more larger social systems” (Cohen & Bailey, 1997, p. 241). Teams interact dynamically, interdependently and adaptively and have a specific role or function to perform and a limited life span of membership (Salas, Dickinson, Converse, & Tannenbaum, 1992).

Different review studies integrated the team learning research findings by combining various perspectives on the phenomenon into a coherent whole (e.g. Edmondson et al., 2007, Knapp, 2010, Wilson et al., 2007). Most recently, Decuyper et al. (2010) developed an integrated team learning model including team learning processes, their antecedents and their outcomes (Fig. 1). In their search for variables that are central to team learning, they thoroughly reviewed relevant team learning studies conducted within different disciplines and addressing different team types and settings, except virtual teams. This interdisciplinary integration of research findings is highly valuable, since the increasing specialization, the split into innumerable disciplines and sub-disciplines and the consequent diversity in the study of team learning raises questions about the extent to which we are truly executing scientific research that builds up a cumulative body of knowledge.

At the same time, however, the question arises whether it is possible to describe team learning in a generic way for a wide variety of teams. Teams are complex, dynamic, and adaptive systems (McGrath, Arrow, & Berdahl, 2000) which exist in a context and perform across time (Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005). Based on their review of team learning studies, Decuyper et al. (2010) conclude that the importance of time and the developmental stage of a team have been neglected in team learning research so far. Team learning processes may operate differently in different stages of a team’s existence. Furthermore, the time pressure a team experiences may influence the appearance of team learning processes as well. Finally, future research needs to study the relation between team learning and team type, including structural elements of the team composition such as team size, team autonomy, team tenure, and team diversity. Therefore, in addition to the development of integrative models and in order to fully understand the phenomenon of team learning, research needs to develop more context-specific models that acknowledge the differences in team processes and team outcomes (Decuyper et al., 2010, Edmondson et al., 2007, Jehn and Rupert, 2007, Wilson et al., 2007).

The aim of this theoretical contribution is to develop a context-specific team learning model, further developing the most recent integrative team learning model of Decuyper, Dochy, and Van den Bossche (2010) and using studies addressing team learning in ad hoc multidisciplinary emergency management command-and-control teams.

Section snippets

A reflection on the generic integrative systematic model for team learning

In the past 20 years, a significant number of authors from different (sub-)disciplines (e.g. organizational sciences, psychology, learning sciences), taking different theoretical perspectives (e.g. socio-cultural, cognitive, socio-cognitive), have contributed to the theoretical development of the construct of team learning. The increasing number of studies has resulted in review studies such as Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, and Gilson (2008) and Ilgen et al. (2005). The most recent review of Decuyper,

Emergency management command and control teams: the on-scene-command-team (OSCT)

In case of an emergency situation, for instance a car accident on a highway involving a truck containing flammable gas, different assistance units (e.g. the police, the medical assistance unit and the fire department) cooperate on the scene of the incident to reach the shared goal of saving lives, prevent damage, clear the scene, and control the crisis situation. Together they are a multi-team system, defined as “two or more teams that interface directly and interdependently in response to

Directions for research and practice

Our team learning model for on-scene-command-teams (OSCTs) illustrates that the specific features of the OSCT influence the appearance of team learning processes (sharing information, co-construction of meaning, constructive conflict, storage and retrieval, team activity, and boundary spanning) and outcomes (team situation model (TSM) of the task and TSM of the team). Team learning appears differently during the action and transition phases that occur in the course of the team’s life (Marks et

References (72)

  • J.A. Cannon-Bowers et al.

    Defining competencies and establishing team training requirements

  • Comfort, L. K. (2007). Crisis management in hindsight: Cognition, communication, coordination, and control. Public...
  • Commission Research Firework Disaster (Commissie Onderzoek Vuurwerkramp) (2001). The Firework Disaster. Final Report...
  • Cooke, N. J., Stout, R., & Salas, E. (1997). Expanding the measurement of situation awareness through cognitive...
  • N.J. Cooke et al.

    Team cognition in experienced command-and-control teams

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

    (2007)
  • N.J. Cooke et al.

    Measuring team knowledge during skill acquisition of a complex task

    International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics

    (2001)
  • N.J. Cooke et al.

    Measuring team knowledge: A window to the cognitive underpinnings of team performance

    Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice

    (2003)
  • N.J. Cooke et al.

    Measuring team knowledge

    Human Factors

    (2000)
  • N.J. Cooke et al.

    A knowledge elicitation approach to the measurement of team situation awareness

  • M.A. Cronin et al.

    Dynamics in groups: Are we there yet?

    The Academy of Management Annals

    (2011)
  • C.K.W. De Dreu

    Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity and team effectiveness: A motivated information processing approach

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (2007)
  • L.A. DeChurch et al.

    The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: A meta-analysis

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (2010)
  • J.C. Dunn et al.

    Dynamics of Communication in Emergency Management

    Applied Cognitive Psychology

    (2002)
  • A. Edmondson

    Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams

    Administrative Science Quarterly

    (1999)
  • A.C. Edmondson

    Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote learning in multidisciplinary action teams

    Journal of Management Studies

    (2003)
  • A.C. Edmondson et al.

    Three perspectives on team learning: Outcome improvement, task mastery, and group process

    The Academy of Management Annals

    (2007)
  • B. Edwards et al.

    Relationships among team ability composition, team mental models, and team performance

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (2006)
  • A.P.J. Ellis et al.

    Team learning: Collectively connecting the dots

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (2003)
  • Endsley, M. (1988). Design and evaluation for situation awareness enhancement. In Proceedings of the Human Factors...
  • C. Gonzales

    Learning to make decisions in dynamic environments: Effects of time constraints and cognitive abilities

    Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society

    (2004)
  • I. Helsloot et al.

    Basisboek regionale crisisbeheersing. Een praktische reader voor functionarissen in de regionale crisisorganisatie

    (2010)
  • S. Houghton et al.

    No safety in numbers: Persistence of biases and their effects on team risk perception and team decision making

    Group and Organization Management: An International Journal

    (2000)
  • D. Ilgen et al.

    Teams in organizations: from Input-Process-Output Models to IMOI models

    Annual Review of Psychology

    (2005)
  • I.L. Janis

    Victims of group think

    (1972)
  • K.A. Jehn et al.

    The effects of conflict asymmetry on work group and individual outcomes

    Academy of Management Journal

    (2010)
  • K.A. Jehn et al.

    Group faultlines and team learning: How to benefit from different perspectives?

  • Cited by (23)

    • How do types of interaction and phases of self-regulated learning set a stage for collaborative engagement?

      2016, Learning and Instruction
      Citation Excerpt :

      Interactive processes, such as common construction of knowledge (Mercer, 1994) or common concept formation (Knezic, Wubbels, Elbers, & Hajer, 2010), are processes of shared knowledge and knowledge co-construction, which are at the core of collaborative learning. Second, in our study, we use self-regulated learning theory to explain the core processes through which individual students engage in strategic actions in learning, especially focusing on the concept of a regulation as an essential mechanism to overcome the problems in collaborative engagement, determined in earlier research (e.g. Järvelä et al., 2010; Van der Haar, Segers, & Jehn, 2013). Third, since SRL is a cyclical and adaptive process that operates in a temporal sequence (before, during, and after learning activity), this means that students' past learning situations contribute to their engagement in learning (Cleary & Zimmerman, 2012).

    • Strategy in talent systems: Top-down and bottom-up approaches

      2022, Frontiers in Sports and Active Living
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    Tel.: +31 (0) 43 3884830; fax: +31 (0) 43 3884801.

    2

    Tel.: +61 3 9349 8400; fax: +61 3 9349 8404.

    View full text