ReviewTowards a contextualized model of team learning processes and outcomes
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)
- et al.
Examining the effect of information order on expert judgment
Organizational Behavior and Human Decisions Processes
(1993) - et al.
What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite
Journal of Management
(1997) - et al.
Grasping the dynamic complexity of team learning: An integrative model for effective team learning in organisations
Educational Research Review
(2010) - et al.
Group composition and decision making: How member familiarity and information distribution affect process and performance
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(1996) - et al.
Situational awareness and safety
Safety Science
(2001) - et al.
Genotype and phenotype schemata as models of situation awareness in dynamic command and control teams
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics
(2009) - et al.
Monitoring and analysis of command post communication in rescue operations
Safety Science
(2001) Stability, bistability, and instability in small group influence patterns
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
(1997)- et al.
Teamwork as an essential component of high-reliability organizations
Health Services Research
(2006) - Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Blickensderfer, E. (1999). Toward an understanding of shared cognition. Orlando,...
Defining competencies and establishing team training requirements
Team cognition in experienced command-and-control teams
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied
Measuring team knowledge during skill acquisition of a complex task
International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics
Measuring team knowledge: A window to the cognitive underpinnings of team performance
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice
Measuring team knowledge
Human Factors
A knowledge elicitation approach to the measurement of team situation awareness
Dynamics in groups: Are we there yet?
The Academy of Management Annals
Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity and team effectiveness: A motivated information processing approach
Journal of Applied Psychology
The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: A meta-analysis
Journal of Applied Psychology
Dynamics of Communication in Emergency Management
Applied Cognitive Psychology
Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams
Administrative Science Quarterly
Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote learning in multidisciplinary action teams
Journal of Management Studies
Three perspectives on team learning: Outcome improvement, task mastery, and group process
The Academy of Management Annals
Relationships among team ability composition, team mental models, and team performance
Journal of Applied Psychology
Team learning: Collectively connecting the dots
Journal of Applied Psychology
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
Basisboek regionale crisisbeheersing. Een praktische reader voor functionarissen in de regionale crisisorganisatie
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
Teams in organizations: from Input-Process-Output Models to IMOI models
Annual Review of Psychology
Victims of group think
The effects of conflict asymmetry on work group and individual outcomes
Academy of Management Journal
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 InstructionCitation 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).
Dynamics of Team Learning Behaviours: The Effect of Time and Team Culture
2022, Behavioral SciencesStrategy in talent systems: Top-down and bottom-up approaches
2022, Frontiers in Sports and Active LivingTeam Learning Behaviors and Performance: A Meta-Analysis of Direct Effects and Moderators
2022, Group and Organization ManagementApplying Online Content-Based Knowledge Awareness and Team Learning to Develop Students’ Programming Skills, Reduce their Anxiety, and Regulate Cognitive Load in a Cloud Classroom
2022, Universal Access in the Information Society