View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Team Production in a Field Experiment: Study of Aggregative vs. Individual Cultural Activities

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Team Production in a Field Experiment: Study of Aggregative vs. Individual Cultural Activities
Language: English
Authors: Lo Prete, F., Macrì, E., Rania, F.
Source: Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education Research. Feb 2021 81(2):345-365.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 21
Publication Date: 2021
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, College Students, Teamwork, Cooperative Learning, Field Studies, Experiments, Cultural Activities, Performance, Scores, Predictor Variables
Geographic Terms: Italy
DOI: 10.1007/s10734-020-00544-z
ISSN: 0018-1560
Abstract: This study aims to determine whether team production among peer groups culturally aggregated can affect the individual student performance in an Italian university. Two further hypotheses were tested in order to verify whether students perform better in team than individually and if students culturally aggregated in team perform better than students differently aggregated. By means of a field experiment, 162 students were involved in the study. The participants had the opportunity to sit a new examination model after responding to a self-reported questionnaire. The new model contemplated that the students performed in team for the first part of the program and carried out the remaining part of examination individually. The groups were composed of individuals linked by homogeneous preferences about cultural activities. The results show that team performance affects positively the final score of exam and the students culturally aggregated pass the exam more than students not culturally aggregated. The aggregative cultural activities influenced the test score more than individual effort or other personal characteristics. We therefore recommend the implementation of a new examination models based on cooperation among students supporting the aggregative cultural activities where sharing action prevails as predictors.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2021
Accession Number: EJ1285402
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEZDG_LepF4qHDPKXl73QQgAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCaM1KToJZpBUKGaEgIBEICBm-7vfmqehVnfLzu8qNC4ze_3LEiNC-3aIvQ7m2-i8FeDE6e4VWbjtjeGu2oNDBgQ5e5LYGblfIzZ4g7FwOAQNojnwP26gxod1n6GPV2iR-6O2m9Liupwj1nzfnlwtwdiNuR-x6BAMf434cZAQh59kiJtW7ZX5fajQPSLt35C51X6EwmcAMhIh87FPlTcGV0nhrCxnYpioD1SLxYj
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0148388877;hie01feb.21;2021Feb01.06:04;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0148388877-1">Team production in a field experiment: study of aggregative vs. individual cultural activities </title> <p>This study aims to determine whether team production among peer groups culturally aggregated can affect the individual student performance in an Italian university. Two further hypotheses were tested in order to verify whether students perform better in team than individually and if students culturally aggregated in team perform better than students differently aggregated. By means of a field experiment, 162 students were involved in the study. The participants had the opportunity to sit a new examination model after responding to a self-reported questionnaire. The new model contemplated that the students performed in team for the first part of the program and carried out the remaining part of examination individually. The groups were composed of individuals linked by homogeneous preferences about cultural activities. The results show that team performance affects positively the final score of exam and the students culturally aggregated pass the exam more than students not culturally aggregated. The aggregative cultural activities influenced the test score more than individual effort or other personal characteristics. We therefore recommend the implementation of a new examination models based on cooperation among students supporting the aggregative cultural activities where sharing action prevails as predictors.</p> <p>Keywords: Team production; Cultural aggregation; Student performance; Predictions; Field experiment</p> <hd id="AN0148388877-2">Introduction</hd> <p>According to OCSE ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref1">29</reflink>]), Italy is far from the average of the other countries for the percentage of graduates compared with the total population[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref2">1</reflink>]. Moreover, Italy has a delay in the number of graduates and among those who complete university studies in time. As a matter of fact, Italian students show the tendency to extend their university path over the needed period, with negative effects on the dropout and on the quality of final students' performance (Garibaldi et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref3">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>Aina et al. ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref4">1</reflink>]) observe that the variables that mainly affect the time to degree in the Italian context are related with individual and family characteristics, university inputs, and the labor market, and are therefore grouped in factors related to demand (students and their families), supply of education, and context factors. If we take into consideration only individual characteristic, we note that the delay in degree may depend by personality trait of student including the following: lack of discipline and motivation, indecision, irrational beliefs about one's worth and low self-esteem (Aina et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref5">2</reflink>]). The iceberg model (OECD [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref6">30</reflink>]) includes six factors, which play a significant role in stagnation in the higher education system and in the dropout ratio besides students' behavior there is the educational performance. This is the best indicator of dropout, as low-academic achievement can restrain students in their educational development. Being able to develop strategies to stimulate learning efficiency could improve students' performance and avoid fostering their negative personality trait such as a low self-esteem that conduct them towards a delay in degree or worse towards irreversible dropout.</p> <p>Also because a longer than required time to graduation can affect the amount of available resources for students and often it ends up delaying access into the labor market, generating thereby a mismatch between labor supply and income (Hakkinen and Uusitalo [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref7">23</reflink>]). Brunello and Comi ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref8">7</reflink>]) supports that education increases productivity and earnings prove steeper for individuals with higher educational attainment so education provides graduates not only with an initial labor market advantage but also with a permanent advantage that increases with time. Also Martins and Pereira ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref9">28</reflink>]) show that "schooling may have a positive impact upon within-group wage inequality, as the spread of returns increases for higher educational levels."</p> <p>In recent years, education is affected by important changes that reflect, somehow, the evolution of contemporary society: new educational goals, attention to diversity, and above all new methods for evaluating student performance are the challenges to be faced by the schools and universities.</p> <p>The most important change is the transition from a traditional, selective, competitive, and individualistic school to an innovative, collaborative, solidarity-based, and participatory school, consistently with the required values of an advanced democracy (Chiari [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref10">12</reflink>]). For these reasons, school should be not only the place where students acquire knowledge but also where they can learn (cognitive and non-cognitive) skills and practical abilities. Non-cognitive skills such as communication abilities, motivation/initiative, teamwork skills, leadership, flexibility/adaptability, and problem-solving competences are at least as important as cognitive skills for individual development and labor market success (Brunello and Schlotter [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref11">8</reflink>]; Rickles et al. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref12">33</reflink>]). The academic discussion on education highlights that cognitive and non-cognitive skills are involved and increased by learning in team production while social constructivism suggests that knowledge creation is shared rather than individual experience (Giuliodori et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref13">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>The learning process can be influenced by peer interaction (Eisenkopf [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref14">15</reflink>]). In fact, students need to be equipped with the ability to think and to reason; therefore, group activities involve students expressing ideas, providing each other with criticism, and discussing and revising ideas (Heng et al. [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref15">24</reflink>]). A general collective intelligence factor exists in groups and it appears to depend both on the composition of group and on factors that emerge from the way group members interact when they are assembled (Woolley et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref16">38</reflink>]).</p> <p>There is a lot of literature that show the capacity of team work to increase production and peer learning to improve performance and production. For example, Büyükboyacı and Robbett ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref17">10</reflink>]) find that teams in which workers can potentially divide the tasks between teammates experience a strong productivity gain relative to individuals or teams in which workers must complete each task independently.</p> <p>This mechanism can be explained through the work of Buechel et al. ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref18">9</reflink>]); their evidence shows two types of peer effects: being observed by a peer can postpone the decision to give up, while observing a peer can be informative and have more sustainable effects. A relevant issue is to understand the mechanism according to which peers may impact on learning; a recent study found that team size and established collaboration foster the probability of an individual learning from the other team members, especially teammates with limited experience are also more likely to learn from experienced colleagues (Ayoubi et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref19">4</reflink>]). Furthermore, peer interaction also raises the motivation (Eisenkopf [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref20">15</reflink>]; Farzaneh and Nejadansari [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref21">17</reflink>]) and the feeling of integration and inclusion, and it may reduce stress and anxiety (Lavasam and Khandan [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref22">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>A peer group characteristic contributes also to the shaping of the education environment and it affects student achievement in several ways: members of a group interact in learning, help each other in their studies, share important information, generate externalities, contribute to the formation of values and inspirations, and so on (De Paola and Scoppa [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref23">13</reflink>]). Although team work has been proven to bring benefits on peer learning and improve production outcomes, a space still remains open and is connected to the group composition. Feld and Zölitz ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref24">18</reflink>]) find that the increase in students' performance is driven by better group interaction underlining that the reorganization of peer groups can lead to higher efficiency, and welfare gains could therefore be possible. Furthermore, as classmates act on learning by teaching each other, more effective teaching may depend on the composition of groups in terms of ability (Kimbrough et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref25">25</reflink>]), also because teamwork positively affects the cohesion of the group, while factors such as workload and complexity of the activity have a negative influence on it. Furthermore, group cohesion is positively related to perceived learning (Bravo et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref26">6</reflink>]).</p> <p>Finally, in addition, there is an extensive literature that reported that joint exam facilitate student performance (Fleming and Alexander [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref27">19</reflink>]; Lou et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref28">27</reflink>]; Falk and Ichino [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref29">16</reflink>]; Orprayoon [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref30">31</reflink>]; Gull and Shehzad [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref31">22</reflink>]; Auta and Maigari [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref32">3</reflink>]).</p> <p>These studies therefore scientifically demonstrate that collective action leads to better results compared with the action of individuals; it is widely accepted in fact that teamwork, thanks to the comparison of different points of view, makes possible to achieve goals that alone would be difficult to achieve. Moreover, cooperation allows to members of the group to enrich each other with own experiences and knowledge. In the group, each component learns to work in teams, and this aspect prepares them for the future work's experience, since the development of technology will require an increasing use of interdependent professional teams.</p> <p>In order to test these theories, by means of a field experiment, we conducted a study in which we involved students enrolled in an Italian university; after responding to an ad hoc questionnaire[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref33">2</reflink>], each student had the possibility to sit to new evaluation scheme[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref34">3</reflink>] composed of two tests in which the final exam program was divided into two parts. The first part was divided into two tests one carried out in the group and the other one carried out individually; the second part instead was carried out only individually. The final score was given by the mean between first and second tests. A total of 210 students joined the questionnaire and finally 162 of them completed the experimental design with the participation to the proposed tests.</p> <p>Hence, the objective of this paper is twofold. First, we estimate the effects of team performance on individual performance; and on the basis of our results, we support the hypothesis that tests carried out in team positively affect the final score. This is line with the reference literature that demonstrates that collective action leads to better results compared with the action of individuals; it is widely accepted in fact that teamwork, thanks to the comparison of different points of view, makes possible to achieve goals that alone would be difficult to achieve. Moreover, cooperation allows members of the group to enrich each other with their own experiences and knowledge.</p> <p>Secondly, we extend this model by including the way in which the group was composed taking into account a series of cultural activities carried out by students in their leisure time. Based on the role of the students, we have identified three different groups. According to the theory of the <emph>prosumer</emph> of Alvin Toffler[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref35">4</reflink>], a first group was composed of activities in which the students had a role of <emph>prosumer</emph> where sharing and aggregation with other prevail; the second group was composed by activities in which students had a role of <emph>consumer</emph> where instead individual action prevails and finally a third group represented by activities in which students had both roles <emph>prosumer and consumer</emph> where sharing or individual action is possible.</p> <p>We found that group composition appears to be a predictor statistically significant of team production. Our results, although in line with existing studies, appear to be complementary to them, because to the best of our knowledge, our field experiment is the first paper in economics which proposes to aggregate members of the team on the basis of their cultural habits carried out during leisure time. De Paola et al. ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref36">14</reflink>]) in fact observed that the students assigned to groups composed of students with social ties perform significantly better than not socially connected team and the friendship generates positive effects for knowledge over time. Also, Poldin et al. ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref37">32</reflink>]) found that peer influence acts mainly through knowledge-sharing channels between students who are connected by social ties, as Berthelon et al. ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref38">5</reflink>]) who suggest that if peer quality improves student performance, the breadth and cohesion of students' network positively affect student outcomes. Finally, Chen and Gong ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref39">11</reflink>]) run an experiment comparing different methods of team formation: random assignment, self-selection and algorithm assignment; their results show that the self-selection method of choice creates better performing teams obviously; self-selection is carried out on the basis of social ties between the members of the group who also demonstrate that they contribute with great efforts to team production.</p> <p>Moreover, regarding our analysis, we carried out validity check of intermediate tests in order to explain how learning can improve in view of the final exam, while random assignment to groups was explained with the necessity to exclude the possibility that the composition of the group could bias the final result of the tests. Finally, the typical cultural team interaction was considered in order for the final score to be properly interpreted.</p> <p>The paper is organized as follows: the "Materials and methods" section presents the materials and methods. In the "Preliminary analysis" section, we report the descriptive statistics and preliminary analysis. In the "Discussion" section, we discuss the implications about public policy design for new methods of evaluation of student's performance, and the "Concluding remarks" section concludes the study.</p> <hd id="AN0148388877-3">Materials and methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0148388877-4">Experimental design</hd> <p>During the second semester of the academic year 2017–2018 (the teaching period goes from February to May) at Magna Graecia University[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref40">5</reflink>], all students attending the courses of Mathematics for Economics and Finance (MEF), Statistics (ST), and Quantitative Method Applied to Economics and Finance (QMEF)[<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref41">6</reflink>] were involved in a field experiment[<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref42">7</reflink>].</p> <p>The standard exams were taken at the end of the courses and consisted of a unique individual test on the whole program based on a 31-grade scale[<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref43">8</reflink>] as results. Thus, we proposed an alternative procedure of examination that is organized as follows: the program of each course was divided in two parts, A and B, and for everyone, the student's performance could be measured by suitable tests: the part A concerning the knowledge and the skills for this reason was first conducted through an intermediate team test and after with an intermediate individual test; the part B concerned about problem solving and for this was evaluated through one final individual test. In the intermediate team test, the group was composed of three students.</p> <p>The first part A had an equal grade of importance based on 15-grade scale and the sum of <emph>Grade Team Part</emph> with <emph>Grade Individual Part</emph> gave <emph>Grade Intermediate</emph>. The final individual test was based on 31-grade scale, the <emph>Grade Final</emph>, and represented the performance about part B; the mean of the grades obtained in the parts A and B, (<emph>Grade Intermediate + Grade Final</emph>)/2, was the <emph>Grade Exam</emph>. A summary of new procedure is included below in Fig. 1.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Scheme of alternative procedure of examination</p> <p>To participate in the scheme, it was necessary to fill a preliminary questionnaire which allowed students to have a code to be grouped together with two other participants by clustering method based on the same cultural attitudes of the participants[<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref44">9</reflink>].</p> <p>Each student joining to study was free to leave the experiment at any time. The students could consider the set of tests as preparation and exercise for the final examination, with the consequent reduction of the expected engagement for the final preparation.</p> <p>A total of 210 students returned the questionnaire validated and continued the experiment. On the basis of the same cultural attitudes, the cluster sampling method selected only a partial number of teams of three individuals who were assigned to the experimental group[<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref45">10</reflink>]; the students not combined (i.e., the ones in couples or single) were randomly grouped in teams of three individuals and assigned to the control group. To have a balanced experimental design for any course, we drew lots of equal number of teams from an experimental and control groups. Finally, 162 students were available for statistical analysis: 81 assigned to the experimental group and the others 81 to the control group[<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref46">11</reflink>]. The rest of 48 students, also if excluded from the experimental design, were however considered as participants to the new procedure of examination and their performance was calculated as said above.</p> <p>All tests, carried out in team or individually, could be solved in 30 min and were related to the solution of short exercises of the program explained until that time. All the participants received the instructions and carried out the tests in the same room and at the same time.</p> <hd id="AN0148388877-5">Questionnaire</hd> <p>To aggregate the students, on the basis of their cultural habits, we used a self-reporting questionnaire composed by 18 items.</p> <p>As a starting point for the arrangement of the questionnaire we used the first Unesco ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref47">35</reflink>]), Unesco ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref48">36</reflink>]) and Unesco-UIS ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref49">37</reflink>]) devised by UNESCO. These two documents were designed by UNESCO within a broader project aiming to define "culture" from an ethical perspective and to measure statistically the cultural habits of the populations. The questionnaire was composed of three dimensions. The first two were useful to detect the students' cultural habits where aggregation and/or individual action prevails, and the third to record prior attainment and general information about the students.</p> <p>Referring to activities in which the students had a role of <emph>prosumer</emph>, the respondent had to record the frequency about the following: (a) <emph>Play an instrument</emph> in a band, (b) be part of a <emph>Sporting</emph> team, (c) <emph>Political</emph> events, (d) be part of <emph>Voluntary</emph> associations; for activities in which the students had a role of <emph>consumer</emph>, the respondent had to indicate the frequency about: (e) attending <emph>Conferences</emph>, (f) visit <emph>Museums</emph>, (g) number of <emph>Book</emph> and/or (h) <emph>News</emph> read; while for activities in which the students had a role of <emph>prosumer and consumer</emph>, the respondent had to register the frequency about the following: (i) <emph>Travel</emph>, (l) time spent in the <emph>Library</emph>, (m) time to use <emph>Internet</emph>, (n) play at <emph>Videogames</emph>. Finally, the remaining 7 items interested student's demographic profile as <emph>Female</emph> and <emph>Age</emph>, economic profile as <emph>Area Size</emph> and <emph>Income Size</emph>, and student's education profile as <emph>High School Grade</emph>, <emph>Technic School</emph>, and <emph>Grade Point Average</emph>. The answers for cultural activities are based on 5-point Likert scale. The internal consistency reliability of the questionnaire with particular reference for the 12 items designed by UNESCO was guaranteed by a very acceptable Cronbach's alpha at 0.638.</p> <hd id="AN0148388877-6">Statistical analyses</hd> <p>Descriptive statistics were calculated for all variables. The statistics used were mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum value, and number of observations. Cronbach Alpha Index verified the reliability of the questionnaire. Cluster analysis was adopted to select the students to make a team of 3 students through similar attitudes and cultural habits in the experimental groups. <emph>T</emph> tests and ANOVA analysis were used to compare the means of test grades. Finally, a linear regressions by using OLS and Tobit methods showed whether the cultural attitudes and personal and education characteristics of participants in intermediate team test could to be assumed as predictors of the team test scores. All statistical analyses were performed by using the commercially available statistical package SPSS version 23.0.</p> <hd id="AN0148388877-7">Preliminary analysis</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0148388877-8">Descriptive statistics</hd> <p>The sample was composed of 162 students: 81 assigned to the experimental group and 81 assigned to control group. As a distinction, we used a dummy variable where <emph>Culturally Aggregated Team</emph> assumed value 1 and the others value 0[<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref50">12</reflink>]. Descriptive statistics are shown in Table 1.</p> <p>Table 1 Descriptive statistics</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th><p>Variable</p></th><th><p>Obs.</p></th><th><p>Mean</p></th><th><p>Std. dev.</p></th><th><p>Min</p></th><th><p>Max</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>Culturally aggregated team</p></td><td><p>162</p></td><td><p>0.50</p></td><td><p>0.502</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Female</p></td><td><p>162</p></td><td><p>0.57</p></td><td><p>0.496</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Age</p></td><td><p>162</p></td><td><p>22.72</p></td><td><p>4.944</p></td><td><p>19</p></td><td><p>61</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Area size</p></td><td><p>162</p></td><td><p>3.70</p></td><td><p>1.347</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Income size</p></td><td><p>162</p></td><td><p>2.39</p></td><td><p>1.982</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>20</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>High school grade</p></td><td><p>162</p></td><td><p>84.81</p></td><td><p>11.417</p></td><td><p>60</p></td><td><p>100</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Technic school</p></td><td><p>162</p></td><td><p>0.57</p></td><td><p>0.496</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Grade point average</p></td><td><p>162</p></td><td><p>24.730</p></td><td><p>5.3979</p></td><td><p>0.000</p></td><td><p>30.000</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Play an instrument</p></td><td><p>162</p></td><td><p>1.21</p></td><td><p>0.682</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Sporting</p></td><td><p>162</p></td><td><p>2.85</p></td><td><p>1.343</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Political</p></td><td><p>162</p></td><td><p>1.74</p></td><td><p>0.874</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Voluntary</p></td><td><p>162</p></td><td><p>2.16</p></td><td><p>1.063</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Conference</p></td><td><p>162</p></td><td><p>2.65</p></td><td><p>0.902</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Museum</p></td><td><p>162</p></td><td><p>2.45</p></td><td><p>0.819</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>4</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Book</p></td><td><p>162</p></td><td><p>3.52</p></td><td><p>1.017</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>News</p></td><td><p>162</p></td><td><p>3.51</p></td><td><p>0.973</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Travel</p></td><td><p>162</p></td><td><p>2.93</p></td><td><p>1.000</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Library</p></td><td><p>162</p></td><td><p>3.05</p></td><td><p>1.079</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Internet</p></td><td><p>162</p></td><td><p>4.72</p></td><td><p>0.489</p></td><td><p>2</p></td><td><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Videogames</p></td><td><p>162</p></td><td><p>2.46</p></td><td><p>1.257</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Grade team part</p></td><td><p>162</p></td><td><p>11.12</p></td><td><p>2.623</p></td><td><p>5</p></td><td><p>15</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Grade individual part</p></td><td><p>147</p></td><td><p>9.47</p></td><td><p>3.608</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>15</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Grade intermediate</p></td><td><p>147</p></td><td><p>20.71</p></td><td><p>4.818</p></td><td><p>5</p></td><td><p>30</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Grade final</p></td><td><p>147</p></td><td><p>22.05</p></td><td><p>7.434</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>31</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Grade exam</p></td><td><p>147</p></td><td><p>21.45</p></td><td><p>4.984</p></td><td><p>8</p></td><td><p>31</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>About 57% of the participants is <emph>Female</emph> with an average <emph>Age</emph> about 23 years; they live in a city with more than 10,000 and less than 30,000 people and the available income is on average more than 6501.00 euro and less than 10,200.00 euro for year. <emph>High School Grade</emph> is on average about 84.81 and the students come from <emph>Technic School</emph> for about 57%. At the time of this study, <emph>Grade Point Average</emph> of the participants is about 24.730[<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref51">13</reflink>]ˊ[<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref52">14</reflink>].</p> <p>As statistics of cultural attitudes, which occurred for cluster sampling method, for each student, we calculated the points of 12 items designed by UNESCO. Among cultural activities in which sharing and aggregation action prevail, <emph>Sporting</emph> and <emph>Voluntary</emph> are the mostly preferred with an average, respectively, of 2.85 and 2.16. For the cultural activities in which individual action prevails, <emph>Book</emph> and <emph>News</emph> are on average of 3.52 and 3.51. Finally, for the cultural activities in which both aggregation and individual action exist, <emph>Internet</emph> and <emph>Library</emph> with an average of 4.72 and 3.05 are mostly preferred. Finally, 162 students have high <emph>Grade Team Part</emph> on average about 11.12. Since the participation to experiment was free, 15 of 162 (9.26%) dropped out of the study, while 147 of 162 obtain on average about 9.47 and 22.05 like points in <emph>Grade Individual Part</emph> and <emph>Grade Final</emph>. For them, <emph>Grade Intermediate</emph> is on average about 20.71 and <emph>Grade Exam</emph> is on average about 21.45.</p> <hd id="AN0148388877-9">Balance checks</hd> <p>From the default of 15 participants to new procedure of examination, we test whether the composition of two groups, experimental and control, remains the same in terms of characteristics when one passes from intermediate team test to individual, intermediate and final, tests. In Table 2, we report in the columns (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref53">1</reflink>) and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref54">2</reflink>) the means of the characteristics of the experimental and control group in the (intermediate) team test and in the columns (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref55">5</reflink>) and (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref56">6</reflink>) the relative means in the other individual tests. Then, in the columns (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref57">3</reflink>) and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref58">4</reflink>) for the team test and (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref59">7</reflink>) and (<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref60">8</reflink>) for individual tests, we present the mean's difference and <emph>p</emph> value obtained through <emph>T</emph> test for independent samples.</p> <p>Table 2 Balance checks on student characteristics across experimental and control group</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th><p>Variable</p></th><th colspan="4"><p>Panel a. Team test</p></th><th colspan="4"><p>Panel b. Individual test</p></th></tr><tr><th /><th><p>(1)</p></th><th><p>(2)</p></th><th><p>(3)</p></th><th><p>(4)</p></th><th><p>(5)</p></th><th><p>(6)</p></th><th><p>(7)</p></th><th><p>(8)</p></th></tr><tr><th /><th><p>Experimental</p></th><th><p>Control</p></th><th><p>E–C</p></th><th><p><italic>p</italic> value</p></th><th><p>Experimental</p></th><th><p>Control</p></th><th><p>E–C</p></th><th><p><italic>p</italic> value</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>Female</p></td><td><p>0.62</p></td><td><p>0.53</p></td><td><p>0.086</p></td><td><p>0.269</p></td><td><p>0.61</p></td><td><p>0.51</p></td><td><p>0.104</p></td><td><p>0.205</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Age</p></td><td><p>22.28</p></td><td><p>23.15</p></td><td><p>− 0.864</p></td><td><p>0.267</p></td><td><p>22.46</p></td><td><p>23.36</p></td><td><p>− 0.902</p></td><td><p>0.289</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Area size</p></td><td><p>3.70</p></td><td><p>3.69</p></td><td><p>0.012</p></td><td><p>0.954</p></td><td><p>3.75</p></td><td><p>3.64</p></td><td><p>0.124</p></td><td><p>0.580</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Income size</p></td><td><p>2.31</p></td><td><p>2.47</p></td><td><p>− 0.160</p></td><td><p>0.608</p></td><td><p>2.24</p></td><td><p>2.47</p></td><td><p>− 0.230</p></td><td><p>0.489</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>High school grade</p></td><td><p>1.65</p></td><td><p>1.72</p></td><td><p>− 0.062</p></td><td><p>0.495</p></td><td><p>1.67</p></td><td><p>1.73</p></td><td><p>− 0.067</p></td><td><p>0.487</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Technic school</p></td><td><p>0.58</p></td><td><p>0.57</p></td><td><p>0.012</p></td><td><p>0.875</p></td><td><p>0.58</p></td><td><p>0.57</p></td><td><p>0.010</p></td><td><p>0.903</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Grade point average</p></td><td><p>25.399</p></td><td><p>24.062</p></td><td><p>1.3368</p></td><td><p>0.115</p></td><td><p>26.014</p></td><td><p>25.093</p></td><td><p>0.9206</p></td><td><p>0.141</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Play an instrument</p></td><td><p>1.17</p></td><td><p>1.25</p></td><td><p>− 0.074</p></td><td><p>0.491</p></td><td><p>1.19</p></td><td><p>1.27</p></td><td><p>− 0.072</p></td><td><p>0.541</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Sporting</p></td><td><p>2.60</p></td><td><p>3.10</p></td><td><p>− 0.494</p></td><td><p>0.019</p></td><td><p>2.61</p></td><td><p>3.13</p></td><td><p>− 0.522</p></td><td><p>0.018</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Political</p></td><td><p>1.62</p></td><td><p>1.86</p></td><td><p>− 0.247</p></td><td><p>0.072</p></td><td><p>1.61</p></td><td><p>1.91</p></td><td><p>− 0.296</p></td><td><p>0.041</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Voluntary</p></td><td><p>2.09</p></td><td><p>2.23</p></td><td><p>− 0.148</p></td><td><p>0.377</p></td><td><p>2.04</p></td><td><p>2.27</p></td><td><p>− 0.225</p></td><td><p>0.201</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Conference</p></td><td><p>2.52</p></td><td><p>2.78</p></td><td><p>− 0.259</p></td><td><p>0.067</p></td><td><p>2.44</p></td><td><p>2.76</p></td><td><p>− 0.316</p></td><td><p>0.032</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Museum</p></td><td><p>2.42</p></td><td><p>2.48</p></td><td><p>− 0.062</p></td><td><p>0.633</p></td><td><p>2.46</p></td><td><p>2.45</p></td><td><p>0.005</p></td><td><p>0.971</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Book</p></td><td><p>3.54</p></td><td><p>3.49</p></td><td><p>0.049</p></td><td><p>0.758</p></td><td><p>3.51</p></td><td><p>3.49</p></td><td><p>0.021</p></td><td><p>0.904</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>News</p></td><td><p>3.40</p></td><td><p>3.62</p></td><td><p>− 0.222</p></td><td><p>0.147</p></td><td><p>3.39</p></td><td><p>3.68</p></td><td><p>− 0.291</p></td><td><p>0.074</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Travel</p></td><td><p>2.93</p></td><td><p>2.93</p></td><td><p>0.000</p></td><td><p>1.000</p></td><td><p>2.96</p></td><td><p>2.95</p></td><td><p>0.012</p></td><td><p>0.944</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Library</p></td><td><p>3.09</p></td><td><p>3.01</p></td><td><p>0.074</p></td><td><p>0.664</p></td><td><p>3.04</p></td><td><p>2.93</p></td><td><p>0.108</p></td><td><p>0.552</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Internet</p></td><td><p>4.75</p></td><td><p>4.69</p></td><td><p>0.062</p></td><td><p>0.423</p></td><td><p>4.75</p></td><td><p>4.68</p></td><td><p>0.070</p></td><td><p>0.395</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Videogames</p></td><td><p>2.41</p></td><td><p>2.51</p></td><td><p>− 0.099</p></td><td><p>0.618</p></td><td><p>2.44</p></td><td><p>2.55</p></td><td><p>− 0.102</p></td><td><p>0.631</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Obs.</p></td><td><p>81</p></td><td align="center"><p>81</p></td><td /><td /><td><p>72</p></td><td><p>75</p></td><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>In the individual tests, the number of participants (Panel b.) is of 147: 72 derived the experimental group and 75 from the control one. The principal characteristics are substantially unchanged considering also the ones statically significant like <emph>Sport</emph>, <emph>Conference</emph>, and <emph>Political</emph>. Only the difference in frequencies of <emph>News</emph> read (about 0.3) between control and experimental groups turns out to be statistically significant. On the contrary, for some characteristics, like <emph>Technic School</emph>, <emph>Grade Point Average</emph>, <emph>Play an instrument</emph>, and <emph>Videogames</emph>, the differences from 0 are decreased.</p> <hd id="AN0148388877-10">Hypothesis's validation</hd> <p>We have successively investigated whether the aggregate of the students in the team produces the usual effects on performance. Therefore, the following hypotheses were generated:</p> <p> <emph>H</emph> <subs> <emph>0</emph> </subs> <sups> <emph>1</emph> </sups> <bold> <emph>:</emph> </bold> <emph>Students perform at the same way in team and individually.</emph> </p> <p> <emph>H</emph> <subs> <emph>1</emph> </subs> <sups> <emph>1</emph> </sups> <emph>: Students perform better in team than individually.</emph> </p> <p>Table 3 reports the means of <emph>Grade Team Part</emph> and <emph>Grade Individual Part</emph> for the sample of students joining first the experiment and participating after to the individual test about part A of the program. The differences between two points are positive on average 1.776 and statistically significant at < 1% level (<emph>p</emph> value = 0.000). The results were allowed to refuse the null hypothesis <emph>H</emph><subs><emph>0</emph></subs><sups><emph>1</emph></sups>, to accept then the alternative one <emph>H</emph><subs><emph>1</emph></subs><sups>1</sups>, and so to confirm that the scheme used is in according to literature.</p> <p>Table 3 Check on performance in team vs. individual performance</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th><p>Statistics</p></th><th colspan="2"><p>Variable</p></th><th><p>Couple</p></th><th><p><italic>p</italic> value</p></th><th><p>Obs.</p></th></tr><tr><th /><th><p>Grade team part</p></th><th><p>Grade individual part</p></th><th><p>Grade team part–grade individual part</p></th><th /><th /></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>Mean</p></td><td><p>11.24</p></td><td><p>9.47</p></td><td><p>1.776</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.000</p></td><td align="left"><p>147</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Std. dev.</p></td><td><p>2.582</p></td><td><p>3.608</p></td><td><p>0.341</p></td><td colspan="2" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>We have finally tested if the proposed aggregation scheme had particular effects on performance. For this investigation, we generated the second hypothesis.</p> <p> <emph>H</emph> <subs> <emph>0</emph> </subs> <sups> <emph>2</emph> </sups> <bold> <emph>:</emph> </bold> <emph>Students culturally aggregated in team perform at the same way as the ones differently aggregated.</emph> </p> <p> <emph>H</emph> <subs> <emph>1</emph> </subs> <sups> <emph>2</emph> </sups> <emph>: Students culturally aggregated in team perform better than the ones differently aggregated.</emph> </p> <p>In Table 4, we present mean values of <emph>Grade Team Part</emph> separately by <emph>Culturally Aggregated Team</emph> dummy in the columns (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref61">1</reflink>) and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref62">2</reflink>); the statistic <emph>F</emph> with <emph>p</emph> value of Levene's test respectively in the columns (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref63">3</reflink>) and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref64">4</reflink>); difference in mean (E–C) with <emph>p</emph> value of <emph>T</emph> test respectively in the columns (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref65">5</reflink>) and (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref66">6</reflink>). Both the cases of variance, if assumed to be equal or not, the difference in mean is extremely great and positive (1.679) to guarantee <emph>p</emph> value statistically significant at < 1% level. These tests have consented to refuse the null hypothesis <emph>H</emph><subs><emph>0</emph></subs><sups><emph>2</emph></sups>, to accept then the alternative one <emph>H</emph><subs><emph>1</emph></subs><sups><emph>2</emph></sups>, and so to affirm that the scheme proposed to group the students in team is efficient to optimize the performance in team.</p> <p>Table 4 Check on performance in team culturally aggregated vs. performance in team differently grouped</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th rowspan="3"><p>Variable</p></th><th colspan="2"><p>Joining the experiment</p></th><th /><th colspan="2"><p>Levene test</p></th><th colspan="2"><p><italic>T</italic> test</p></th></tr><tr><th><p>(1)</p></th><th><p>(2)</p></th><th><p>Variance</p></th><th><p>(3)</p></th><th><p>(4)</p></th><th><p>(5)</p></th><th><p>(6)</p></th></tr><tr><th><p>Experimental</p></th><th><p>Control</p></th><th /><th><p><italic>F</italic></p></th><th><p><italic>p</italic> value</p></th><th><p>E–C</p></th><th><p><italic>p</italic> value</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>Grade team part</p></td><td><p>11.96</p></td><td><p>10.28</p></td><td><p>Equality assumed</p></td><td><p>3.635</p></td><td><p>0.058</p></td><td><p>1.679</p></td><td><p>0.000</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Obs.</p></td><td><p>81</p></td><td><p>81</p></td><td><p>Not Equality assumed</p></td><td colspan="2" /><td><p>1.679</p></td><td><p>0.000</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0148388877-11">Results</hd> <p>In force to <emph>H</emph><subs><emph>1</emph></subs><sups><emph>1</emph></sups> and <emph>H</emph><subs><emph>1</emph></subs><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> hypothesis, to determine the effects of this new shape of aggregation of students in team through the <emph>Prosumer</emph>, the <emph>Consumer</emph>, and the <emph>Prosumer/Consumer</emph> actions of team components, we estimate the following simple linear regression model on <emph>Grade Part Team</emph></p> <p> <ephtml> <math display="block" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mtext>Grade</mtext><mspace width="0.25em" /><msub><mtext>Part Team</mtext><mi mathvariant="normal">i</mi></msub><mo>=</mo><msub><mi>β</mi><mn>0</mn></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>β</mi><mn>1</mn></msub><mtext>Culturally</mtext><mspace width="0.25em" /><msub><mtext>Aggregated Team</mtext><mi>i</mi></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>β</mi><mn>2</mn></msub><msub><mi>X</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">i</mi></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>β</mi><mn>3</mn></msub><msub><mi>Y</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">i</mi></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>β</mi><mn>4</mn></msub><msub><mi>Z</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">i</mi></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>β</mi><mn>5</mn></msub><msub><mi>P</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">i</mi></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>β</mi><mn>6</mn></msub><msub><mi>C</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">i</mi></msub><mo>+</mo><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>β</mi><mn>7</mn></msub><msub><mi mathvariant="italic">PC</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">i</mi></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>ε</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">i</mi></msub></math> </ephtml> </p> <p>Graph</p> <p>where Culturally Aggregated Team<subs>i</subs> is the dummy variable taking value of 1 if the student is connected to the team through their cultural attitudes and of 0 otherwise; <emph>X</emph><subs>i</subs> is the vector of student's demographic profile (<emph>Female</emph>, <emph>Age</emph>); <emph>Y</emph><subs>i</subs> is the vector of economic profile (<emph>Area Size, Income Size</emph>); <emph>Z</emph><subs>i</subs> is the vector of student's education (<emph>High School Grade</emph>, <emph>Technic school</emph>, <emph>Grade Point Average</emph>); <emph>P</emph><subs>i</subs> is the vector of all cultural actions which intend the individual as a <emph>Prosumer</emph> (<emph>Play an instrument</emph>, <emph>Sporting</emph>, <emph>Political</emph>, <emph>Voluntary</emph>); <emph>C</emph><subs>i</subs> is the vector of all cultural actions which intend the individual as a <emph>Consumer</emph> (<emph>Conference</emph>, <emph>Museum</emph>, <emph>Book</emph>, <emph>News</emph>); <emph>PC</emph><subs>i</subs> is the vector of those actions which could be considered both for <emph>Prosumer</emph> and <emph>Consumer</emph> since it depends on the use and aim (<emph>Travel</emph>, <emph>Library</emph>, <emph>Internet</emph>, <emph>Videogames</emph>); and <emph>ε</emph><subs>i</subs> is the error term.</p> <p>In Table 5, we present OLS estimates on student's team performance explained through <emph>Culturally Aggregated Team</emph> and the variables' vectors, <emph>X</emph><subs>i</subs>, <emph>Y</emph><subs>i</subs>, <emph>Z</emph><subs>i</subs>, <emph>P</emph><subs>i</subs>, <emph>C</emph><subs>i</subs>, and <emph>PC</emph><subs>i</subs>. All linear regressions are calculated with respect to heteroskedasticity hypothesis for which the collinear variables are deleted.</p> <p>Table 5 Cultural aggregations and team performance: OLS estimates</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th><p>Predictor</p></th><th /><th /><th colspan="6"><p>Model</p></th></tr><tr><th /><th><p>(1)</p></th><th><p>(2)</p></th><th><p>(3)</p></th><th><p>(4)</p></th><th><p>(5)</p></th><th><p>(6)</p></th><th><p>(7)</p></th><th><p>(8)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>Culturally aggregated team</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.679***</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.681***</p></td><td><p>1.682***</p></td><td><p>1.564***</p></td><td><p>1.681***</p></td><td><p>1.590***</p></td><td><p>1.587***</p></td><td><p>1.707***</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td align="left"><p>(0.392)</p></td><td align="left"><p>(0.396)</p></td><td><p>(0.399)</p></td><td><p>(0.388)</p></td><td><p>(0.387)</p></td><td><p>(0.391)</p></td><td><p>(0.392)</p></td><td><p>(0.392)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Female</p></td><td rowspan="38" /><td align="left"><p>0.254</p></td><td><p>0.264</p></td><td><p>0.003</p></td><td><p>0.135</p></td><td><p>0.029</p></td><td><p>0.188</p></td><td><p>0.358</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td align="left"><p>(0.399)</p></td><td><p>(0.402)</p></td><td><p>(0.397)</p></td><td><p>(0.457)</p></td><td><p>(0.445)</p></td><td><p>(0.444)</p></td><td><p>(0.514)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Age</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.027</p></td><td><p>0.027</p></td><td><p>0.027</p></td><td><p>0.024</p></td><td><p>0.003</p></td><td><p>0.029</p></td><td><p>0.008</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td rowspan="35" /><td><p>(0.040)</p></td><td><p>(0.039)</p></td><td><p>(0.039)</p></td><td><p>(0.041)</p></td><td><p>(0.041)</p></td><td><p>(0.041)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Area size</p></td><td><p>0.080</p></td><td><p>0.093</p></td><td><p>0.140</p></td><td><p>0.086</p></td><td><p>0.089</p></td><td><p>0.132</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>(0.148)</p></td><td><p>(0.144)</p></td><td><p>(0.143)</p></td><td><p>(0.145)</p></td><td><p>(0.148)</p></td><td><p>(0.147)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Income size</p></td><td><p>0.022</p></td><td><p>0.063</p></td><td><p>0.087</p></td><td><p>0.095</p></td><td><p>0.050</p></td><td><p>0.096</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>(0.101)</p></td><td><p>(0.098)</p></td><td><p>(0.096)</p></td><td><p>(0.099)</p></td><td><p>(0.099)</p></td><td><p>(0.097)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>High school grade</p></td><td rowspan="30" /><td><p>0.058***</p></td><td><p>0.052***</p></td><td><p>0.057***</p></td><td><p>0.060***</p></td><td><p>0.057***</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>(0.019)</p></td><td><p>(0.019)</p></td><td><p>(0.019)</p></td><td><p>(0.099)</p></td><td><p>(0.019)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Technic school</p></td><td><p>− 0.331</p></td><td><p>− 0.297</p></td><td><p>− 0.284</p></td><td><p>− 0.319</p></td><td><p>− 0.198</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>(0.398)</p></td><td><p>(0.390)</p></td><td><p>(0.405)</p></td><td><p>(0.405)</p></td><td><p>(0.404)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Grade point average</p></td><td><p>0.033</p></td><td><p>0.024</p></td><td><p>0.039</p></td><td><p>0.031</p></td><td><p>0.023</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>(0.039)</p></td><td><p>(0.038)</p></td><td><p>(0.039)</p></td><td><p>(0.040)</p></td><td><p>(0.039)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Play an instrument</p></td><td rowspan="24" /><td><p>0.636**</p></td><td rowspan="8" /><td rowspan="16" /><td><p>0.657**</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>(0.284)</p></td><td><p>(0.269)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Sporting</p></td><td><p>− 0.112</p></td><td><p>− 0.136</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>(0.173)</p></td><td><p>(0.184)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Political</p></td><td><p>0.551**</p></td><td><p>0.657***</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>(0.235)</p></td><td><p>(0.269)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Voluntary</p></td><td><p>− 0.122</p></td><td><p>− 0.083</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>(0.205)</p></td><td><p>(0.215)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Conference</p></td><td rowspan="16" /><td><p>− 0.263</p></td><td><p>− 0.465*</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>(0.235)</p></td><td><p>(0.257)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Museum</p></td><td><p>0.200</p></td><td><p>0.278</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>(0.269)</p></td><td><p>(0.285)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Book</p></td><td><p>− 0.007</p></td><td><p>0.059</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>(0.227)</p></td><td><p>(0.237)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>News</p></td><td><p>0.477*</p></td><td><p>0.376</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>(0.241)</p></td><td><p>(0.250)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Travel</p></td><td rowspan="8" /><td><p>0.127</p></td><td><p>− 0.052</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>(0.198)</p></td><td><p>(0.219)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Library</p></td><td><p>− 0.053</p></td><td><p>− 0.178</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>(0.191)</p></td><td><p>(0.209)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Internet</p></td><td><p>− 0.343</p></td><td><p>− 0.493</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>(0.412)</p></td><td><p>(0.408)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Videogames</p></td><td><p>0.142</p></td><td><p>0.209</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>(0.172)</p></td><td><p>(0.169)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Constant</p></td><td align="left"><p>10.284***</p></td><td align="left"><p>9.518***</p></td><td><p>9.170***</p></td><td><p>3.662***</p></td><td><p>2.944*</p></td><td><p>2.616</p></td><td><p>4.448*</p></td><td><p>3.990</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td align="left"><p>(0.277)</p></td><td align="left"><p>(0.980)</p></td><td><p>(1.168)</p></td><td><p>(1.899)</p></td><td><p>(1.972)</p></td><td><p>(2.038)</p></td><td><p>(2.599)</p></td><td><p>(2.600)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Observations</p></td><td align="left"><p>162</p></td><td align="left"><p>162</p></td><td><p>162</p></td><td><p>162</p></td><td><p>162</p></td><td><p>162</p></td><td><p>162</p></td><td><p>162</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Adjusted R-squared</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.097</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.091</p></td><td><p>0.082</p></td><td><p>0.146</p></td><td><p>0.189</p></td><td><p>0.159</p></td><td><p>0.132</p></td><td><p>0.199</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><italic>F</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>18.390***</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.397***</p></td><td><p>3.861***</p></td><td><p>4.430***</p></td><td><p>4.117***</p></td><td><p>3.540***</p></td><td><p>3.045***</p></td><td><p>3.004***</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Dependent variable: Grade team part; standard errors (corrected for heteroscedasticity) are reported in parentheses. Significance level: *** for <emph>p</emph> < 0.01, ** for <emph>p</emph> < 0.05, * for <emph>p</emph> < 0.10%</p> <p>In the model (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref67">1</reflink>), we engage one predictor <emph>Culturally Aggregated Team</emph> which is extremely significant at 1% level and is able to increment <emph>Grade Team Part</emph> of + 1.68 points with respect to control students' one. The model is globally acceptable (<emph>F</emph> = 18.390) but explains only about 9.7% of variance of dependent variable.</p> <p>In the model (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref68">2</reflink>), we add to <emph>Culturally Aggregated Team</emph> the demographic profile of participants. The model, even if significant (<emph>F</emph> = 6.397), does not improve the explained variance (<emph>adjusted R-squared</emph> = 0.091). <emph>Culturally Aggregated Team</emph> remains to be the best predictor at level 1% with the same magnitude (+ 1.68) of previous model.</p> <p>The model (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref69">3</reflink>) considers in addition the demographic profile of the participants. The new entries decrease again the explained variance (<emph>adjusted R</emph><sups><emph>-</emph></sups><emph>squared</emph> = 0.082). The magnitude of Culturally Aggregated Team remains the same (+ 1.68 points) and the only to be statistically significant (at level 1%).</p> <p>n the model (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref70">4</reflink>), we consider the education profile of the student, too. This time, the magnitude of <emph>Culturally Aggregated Team</emph> is again significant at level 1% but its effect decreases sensibly (+ 1.56 points) in favor of <emph>High School Grade</emph> (+ 0.06) which is significant at level 1%, too. The other variables are out of control and to come from <emph>Technic School</emph> constitutes an obstacle (− 0.33 points) to obtain a high performance in team work. The impact of cognitive abilities is seen in a more explained variance (<emph>adjusted R-squared</emph> = 0.146).</p> <p>In the remaining models of Table 5, we take into account those variables that intended the individual as a <emph>Prosumer</emph> or <emph>Consumer</emph> or <emph>Prosumer/Consumer</emph> with respect to the cultural activities. In particular, the model (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref71">5</reflink>) investigates the effect of the activities carried out by a <emph>Prosumer</emph>. Besides to <emph>Culturally Aggregated Team</emph> and <emph>High School Grade</emph> significant at level 1%, <emph>Play an instrument</emph> and <emph>Political</emph> are significant at level 5%, adding respectively + 0.64 and + 0.55 points of magnitude to <emph>Grade Team Part</emph>. The total explained variance is near about 19%, too.</p> <p>Successively, in the model (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref72">6</reflink>), the investigation is made involving the variables of model (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref73">4</reflink>) and the actions to characterize the individual as a <emph>Consumer</emph> of culture. At difference of previous model (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref74">5</reflink>), none of cultural activities is able to influence the <emph>Grade Team Part</emph> with the only exception of <emph>News</emph> with magnitude of + 0.48 points and significance at level 10%. More precisely, with respect to (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref75">5</reflink>), the vector <emph>C</emph><subs>i</subs> reduces the probability to explain the grade (<emph>adjusted R-squared</emph> = 0.159) and with respect to (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref76">5</reflink>) produces a sensible decrement of the effect of <emph>Culturally Aggregated Team</emph> (+ 1.59 points) on <emph>Grade Team Part</emph>, too.</p> <p>In the model (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref77">7</reflink>), we investigated the effects of those activities that could be conjugate both to produce and to consume culture. None of them is statistically significant and the explained variance to the grade is consistently decreased with respect to models (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref78">5</reflink>) and (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref79">6</reflink>) (<emph>adjusted R-squared</emph> = 0.132). The magnitude of <emph>Culturally Aggregated Team</emph> remains at the same level (+ 1.59 points) of the previous model (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref80">6</reflink>) to justify the little importance of the vector <emph>PC</emph><subs>i</subs> on <emph>Grade Team Part</emph> prediction.</p> <p>Finally, in the model (<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref81">8</reflink>), we use all the variables at disposition as predictors. The result is sensibly higher (<emph>adjusted R-squared</emph> = 0.199) than model (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref82">5</reflink>)'s one; at the same significant variables of (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref83">5</reflink>) equipped by the same magnitude and same level of significance (<emph>Culturally Aggregated Team</emph>, <emph>High School Grade, Play an instrument</emph> and <emph>Political</emph>), <emph>Conference</emph> joins the group with negative contribute of − 0.47 points to <emph>Grade Team Part</emph>.</p> <p>It is useful to underline that in all models, <emph>Culturally Aggregated Team</emph> has a strong effect of about + 1.7 points on <emph>Grade Team Part</emph>. In particular, on the average grade in team part of 11.12 (see Table 1), this dummy represents about 15.3%.</p> <p>In the Appendix, we show that results are almost confirmed both when we run the backward linear regression (see Appendix 2) and when we consider the students aged under 28 years old who passed the intermediate team test (see Appendix 2).</p> <p>In Table 6, we report mean values of grade intermediate, grade final, and grade exam separately by groups, experimental and control. As shown in the column (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref84">3</reflink>), the different grades between the students of two groups tend to decrease and, on the contrary, the <emph>p</emph> value from 0.086 passes to 0.123. Moreover, in the final test, we find that any statistically significant difference does not exist.</p> <p>Table 6 Check of difference grades in the other tests</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th><p>Variable</p></th><th><p>(1)</p></th><th><p>(2)</p></th><th><p>(3)</p></th><th><p>(4)</p></th></tr><tr><th /><th><p>Experimental</p></th><th><p>Control</p></th><th><p>E–C</p></th><th><p><italic>p</italic> value</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>Grade intermediate</p></td><td><p>21.40</p></td><td><p>20.04</p></td><td><p>1.363</p></td><td><p>0.086</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Grade final</p></td><td><p>22.38</p></td><td><p>21.73</p></td><td><p>0.642</p></td><td><p>0.603</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Grade exam</p></td><td><p>22.10</p></td><td><p>20.83</p></td><td><p>1.271</p></td><td><p>0.123</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Obs.</p></td><td><p>72</p></td><td><p>75</p></td><td colspan="2" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>We conclude our investigation counting the number of students who passed exam with respect to cultural connections. We find that in the complex the 84.7% of culturally aggregated participants pass versus the 77.3% not culturally aggregated. Our results must be considered preliminary; in fact, our study presented more elements similar to a pilot study because it open the way for further research in which the same alternative scheme of exam can be proposed for all parts of the program.</p> <hd id="AN0148388877-12">Discussion</hd> <p>The interaction with peers is correlated with improvements in learning process and academic achievement; this established relationships are crucial in the determination of skills and abilities. In fact, non-cognitive skills exert important effects on education and on labor market outcomes. Since some students face problems in mastering these abilities, therefore a possible way to overcome this problem may involve students in group activities such as discussions and debates, expressing and revising ideas.</p> <p>The composition of groups based on homogeneous characteristics such as similar cultural habits shows that team cooperation offers a positive externality such as the motivation and the ability to reason and to face problems. Nowadays, the school, at every level, almost never carry out programs targeted at the development of non-cognitive skills, because the traditional school is oriented towards the implementation of evaluation and teaching methods based on traditional, individualistic, and competitive schemes. Classroom activities normally focused on teachers' explanation, which does not support the development of critical thinking or problem solving. In conventional education, the unidirectional relationship between pupil and teacher, the traditional learning methods are not sufficient variables to explain the desired role of school.</p> <p>School should evolve in order for its programs to prove updated with the changes of society, with the aim to be attractive and able to provide pupils with knowledge, skills, and abilities that can be effectively spent on the labor market, a possible starting point may be represented by the strengthening of the cooperation also in the evaluation schemes. The new professions require skills that concern the personal qualities of a candidate (problem solving, decision making, work in team, leadership), as well as stronger and characterizing capabilities that underline particular type of personalities able to work in shared contexts with shared skills.</p> <p>Having homogeneous and shared preferences regarding activities that usually take place in leisure and free time could lead to a strengthening of ties and the ability to share tasks, assessments, and objections.</p> <p>The conventional academic knowledge is not bound to generate multi-tasking professionals, but simply a mosaic of disconnected skills and actions.</p> <p>For this reason, it may be reasonable to aim to new approaches to evaluate student's performance especially at the academic level in order for this complex mosaic to be intensively cross-fertilized in light of the imminent transition to the labor market at the end of the academic path. This would be clearly consistent with the present trends in the more advanced layers of industry, where informal relationships and processes aim at generating intangible value in order for any products to respond to contemporary individuals "and groups" views oriented towards the knowledge-based economy paradigm.</p> <p>In the leading industry, which belongs to what is conventionally defined as knowledge-based economy and consists of companies active in the digital dimension and providing the markets with info-tech tools, human resources are progressively oriented towards multi-disciplinary approaches, working in asymmetrical and informal teams where unpredictable synergies generate new products and therefore the overall value of corporate action. Finally, group interaction is useful to shape the learning as the students' performance so a credible educational policy should encourage and strengthen a high level new method for assessing academic performance able to intensify cooperation and collaboration among the students.</p> <hd id="AN0148388877-13">Concluding Remarks</hd> <p>The aim of our study was to determine whether students perform better in team than individually and if students culturally aggregated in team perform better than students differently aggregated.</p> <p>On the basis of the statistically significant high scores, it is reasonable to conclude that the team performance affects positively the final exam score. Also, we observed that students culturally aggregated pass the exam more than students not culturally aggregated. Therefore, the findings suggest that team test score is influenced by aggregative cultural activities and high school grade rather than individual effort or demographic profile as female and age, economic profile as area size and income size, and education profile as technical school and grade point average.</p> <p>Then, our findings would imply to implement new examination models based on team performance and cultural aggregation team, and at the same time the importance of supporting cultural activities, with a strong aggregative component, inside the universities.</p> <p>The present study should be considered preliminary due to the number of students involved and therefore our evidence needed to be confirmed by further randomized and comparative analysis. Future research might concentrate on the relationship between team production, cultural aggregation, and achievement of positive results. With our evidences, we hope to stimulate the debate on the topic in order to foster students' performance at different levels of education, since the new model has been proposed only for a part of the program, and repetition is recommended on the whole examination program.</p> <hd id="AN0148388877-14">Appendix 1. Definition, label, and scale of variables</hd> <p>In Table 7, we present the variables of interest with a synthetic definition and relative scale.</p> <p>Table 7 Variable definition</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th><p>Variable</p></th><th><p>Definition</p></th><th><p>Scale</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>Culturally aggregated team</p></td><td><p>Dummy variable that assigns the student to a distinct group</p></td><td><p>1 = experimental group; 0 = control group</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Female</p></td><td><p>Dummy variable that denotes the gender</p></td><td><p>1 = female; 0 = male</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Age</p></td><td><p>Age of participant</p></td><td><p>From 18 to 65 years old</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Area size</p></td><td><p>Density of population in the center where lives the participant</p></td><td><p>1 = area under 1000 people; 2 = area 1000–5000 people; 3 = area 5000–10,000 people; 4 = area 10,000–30,000 people; 5 = area over 30,000 people<sup>(1)</sup>.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Income size</p></td><td><p>Income bracket of participant's family</p></td><td><p>1 = 0.00–6500.00€; 2 = 6501.00–1200.00€; 3 = 10,201.00–13,900.00€; 4 = 13,901.00–17,600.00€; 5 = 17,601.00–21,300.00€; 6 = 21,301.00–25,000.00€; 7 = 25,001.00–28,700.00€; 8 = 28,701.00–32,400.00€; 9 = 32,401.00–36,100.00€; 10 = 36,101.00–40,000.00€; 11 = 40,001.00–43,500.00€; 12 = 43,501.00–47,200.00€; 13 = 47,201.00–50,900.00€; 14 = 50,901.00–54,600.00€; 15 = 54,601.00–58,300.00€; 16 = 58,301.00–62,000.00€; 17 = 62,001.00–65,700.00€; 18 = 65,700.00–69,400.00€; 19 = 69,401.00–73,100.00€; 20 = over 73,101.00€<sup>(2)</sup>.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>High school grade</p></td><td><p>Final score of study cycle to access to university</p></td><td><p>From 60 to 101, where 101 identifies 100 et laude, that is the adding encomium to 100.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Technic school</p></td><td><p>School of technical type</p></td><td><p>1 = attending a technical school; 0 = otherwise</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Grade point average</p></td><td><p>Expected exam passed score</p></td><td><p>from 1 to 31, where 31 identifies 30 et laude, that is the adding encomium to 30.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Play an instrument</p></td><td><p>Frequency to play an instrument</p></td><td><p>1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = regularly</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Sporting</p></td><td><p>Frequency to practice a team sport</p></td><td><p><italic>see Play an instrument</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Political</p></td><td><p>Frequency to make political activity</p></td><td><p><italic>see Play an instrument</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Voluntary</p></td><td><p>Frequency to offer assistance to others</p></td><td><p><italic>see Play an instrument</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Conference</p></td><td><p>Frequency to attend conference</p></td><td><p><italic>see Play an instrument</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Museum</p></td><td><p>Frequency to visit museum</p></td><td><p><italic>see Play an instrument</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Book</p></td><td><p>Frequency to read book</p></td><td><p><italic>see Play an instrument</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>News</p></td><td><p>Frequency to read news</p></td><td><p><italic>see Play an instrument</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Travel</p></td><td><p>Frequency to travel in group</p></td><td><p><italic>see Play an instrument</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Library</p></td><td><p>Frequency to attend library</p></td><td><p><italic>see Play an instrument</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Internet</p></td><td><p>Frequency to surf on the net</p></td><td><p><italic>see Play an instrument</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Videogames</p></td><td><p>Frequency to play at videogames</p></td><td><p><italic>see Play an instrument</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Grade team part</p></td><td><p>Score of intermediate team test</p></td><td><p>from 1 to 15. The threshold is of 8 grades.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Grade individual part</p></td><td><p>Score of intermediate individual test</p></td><td><p><italic>see Grade Team Part</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Grade intermediate</p></td><td><p>Part A score of examination</p></td><td><p>from 1 to 31, where 31 identifies 30 et laude, that is the adding encomium to 30. The threshold is of 18 grades.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Grade final</p></td><td><p>Part B score of examination</p></td><td><p><italic>see Grade Intermediate</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Grade exam</p></td><td><p>Score of examination</p></td><td><p><italic>see Grade Intermediate</italic></p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <sups>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref85">1</reflink>)</sups>The particular scaling was due to the population density of the cities of Calabria region</p> <p> <sups>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref86">2</reflink>)</sups>The income brackets are those used by the University to determinate the amount of taxes due by students</p> <hd id="AN0148388877-15">Appendix 2. Descriptive statistics across courses</hd> <p>In Table 8, we report the descriptive statistics relating to the courses. A similar composition across 12 items of UNESCO questionnaire is shown with respect to Table 1. It is evident that the only changed characteristic is the age. In fact, as we will see later, <emph>Age</emph> represents a not determinant variable for our study.</p> <p>Table 8 Descriptive statistics across courses</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th><p>Variable</p></th><th colspan="5"><p>MEF</p></th><th colspan="5"><p>St</p></th><th colspan="5"><p>QMEF</p></th></tr><tr><th /><th><p>Obs.</p></th><th><p>Mean</p></th><th><p>Std. dev.</p></th><th><p>Min</p></th><th><p>Max</p></th><th><p>Obs.</p></th><th><p>Mean</p></th><th><p>Std. dev.</p></th><th><p>Min</p></th><th><p>Max</p></th><th><p>Obs.</p></th><th><p>Mean</p></th><th><p>Std. dev.</p></th><th><p>Min</p></th><th><p>Max</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>Culturally aggregated team</p></td><td><p>66</p></td><td><p>0.50</p></td><td><p>0.504</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>72</p></td><td><p>0.50</p></td><td><p>0.504</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>24</p></td><td><p>0.50</p></td><td><p>0.511</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Female</p></td><td><p>66</p></td><td><p>0.52</p></td><td><p>0.504</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>72</p></td><td><p>0.63</p></td><td><p>0.488</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>24</p></td><td><p>0.58</p></td><td><p>0.504</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Age</p></td><td><p>66</p></td><td><p>21.26</p></td><td><p>3.217</p></td><td><p>19</p></td><td><p>38</p></td><td><p>72</p></td><td><p>22.24</p></td><td><p>4.040</p></td><td><p>46</p></td><td><p>22.24</p></td><td><p>24</p></td><td><p>28.17</p></td><td><p>7.323</p></td><td><p>25</p></td><td><p>61</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Area size</p></td><td><p>66</p></td><td><p>3.50</p></td><td><p>1.395</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>5</p></td><td><p>72</p></td><td><p>3.81</p></td><td><p>1.296</p></td><td><p>2</p></td><td><p>5</p></td><td><p>24</p></td><td><p>3.92</p></td><td><p>1.349</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Income size</p></td><td><p>66</p></td><td><p>2.41</p></td><td><p>2.625</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>5</p></td><td><p>72</p></td><td><p>2.54</p></td><td><p>1.463</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>5</p></td><td><p>24</p></td><td><p>.87</p></td><td><p>1.035</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>High school grade</p></td><td><p>66</p></td><td><p>82.18</p></td><td><p>11.803</p></td><td><p>60</p></td><td><p>100</p></td><td><p>72</p></td><td><p>85.07</p></td><td><p>11.199</p></td><td><p>100</p></td><td><p>85.07</p></td><td><p>24</p></td><td><p>91.25</p></td><td><p>8.263</p></td><td><p>68</p></td><td><p>100</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Technic school</p></td><td><p>66</p></td><td><p>0.56</p></td><td><p>.500</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>72</p></td><td><p>0.57</p></td><td><p>.499</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>0.57</p></td><td><p>24</p></td><td><p>0.63</p></td><td><p>0.495</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Grade point average</p></td><td><p>66</p></td><td><p>23.591</p></td><td><p>7.8906</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>30.0</p></td><td><p>72</p></td><td><p>24.900</p></td><td><p>2.2281</p></td><td><p>29.5</p></td><td><p>24.900</p></td><td><p>24</p></td><td><p>27.354</p></td><td><p>1.2978</p></td><td><p>24.5</p></td><td><p>29.5</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Play an instrument</p></td><td><p>66</p></td><td><p>1.12</p></td><td><p>0.481</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>4</p></td><td><p>72</p></td><td><p>1.29</p></td><td><p>.863</p></td><td><p>5</p></td><td><p>1.29</p></td><td><p>24</p></td><td><p>1.21</p></td><td><p>.509</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>3</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Sporting</p></td><td><p>66</p></td><td><p>2.82</p></td><td><p>1.487</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>5</p></td><td><p>72</p></td><td><p>2.83</p></td><td><p>1.199</p></td><td><p>5</p></td><td><p>2.83</p></td><td><p>24</p></td><td><p>3.00</p></td><td><p>1.383</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Political</p></td><td><p>66</p></td><td><p>1.65</p></td><td><p>0.794</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>4</p></td><td><p>72</p></td><td><p>1.79</p></td><td><p>.855</p></td><td><p>5</p></td><td><p>1.79</p></td><td><p>24</p></td><td><p>1.83</p></td><td><p>1.129</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Voluntary</p></td><td><p>66</p></td><td><p>2.03</p></td><td><p>0.992</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>5</p></td><td><p>72</p></td><td><p>2.21</p></td><td><p>1.087</p></td><td><p>5</p></td><td><p>2.21</p></td><td><p>24</p></td><td><p>2.38</p></td><td><p>1.173</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Conference</p></td><td><p>66</p></td><td><p>2.62</p></td><td><p>0.855</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>4</p></td><td><p>72</p></td><td><p>2.63</p></td><td><p>.879</p></td><td><p>4</p></td><td><p>2.63</p></td><td><p>24</p></td><td><p>2.79</p></td><td><p>1.103</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Museum</p></td><td><p>66</p></td><td><p>2.53</p></td><td><p>0.728</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>4</p></td><td><p>72</p></td><td><p>2.39</p></td><td><p>.897</p></td><td><p>4</p></td><td><p>2.39</p></td><td><p>24</p></td><td><p>2.42</p></td><td><p>.830</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>4</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Book</p></td><td><p>66</p></td><td><p>3.47</p></td><td><p>1.041</p></td><td><p>2</p></td><td><p>5</p></td><td><p>72</p></td><td><p>3.53</p></td><td><p>.964</p></td><td><p>5</p></td><td><p>3.53</p></td><td><p>24</p></td><td><p>3.63</p></td><td><p>1.135</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>News</p></td><td><p>66</p></td><td><p>3.24</p></td><td><p>1.039</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>5</p></td><td><p>72</p></td><td><p>3.54</p></td><td><p>.871</p></td><td><p>5</p></td><td><p>3.54</p></td><td><p>24</p></td><td><p>4.12</p></td><td><p>.797</p></td><td><p>3</p></td><td><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Travel</p></td><td><p>66</p></td><td><p>2.88</p></td><td><p>1.015</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>5</p></td><td><p>72</p></td><td><p>2.81</p></td><td><p>.959</p></td><td><p>5</p></td><td><p>2.81</p></td><td><p>24</p></td><td><p>3.42</p></td><td><p>.974</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Library</p></td><td><p>66</p></td><td><p>3.11</p></td><td><p>1.054</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>5</p></td><td><p>72</p></td><td><p>3.14</p></td><td><p>1.066</p></td><td><p>5</p></td><td><p>3.14</p></td><td><p>24</p></td><td><p>2.63</p></td><td><p>1.135</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Internet</p></td><td><p>66</p></td><td><p>4.68</p></td><td><p>.559</p></td><td><p>2</p></td><td><p>5</p></td><td><p>72</p></td><td><p>4.72</p></td><td><p>.451</p></td><td><p>5</p></td><td><p>4.72</p></td><td><p>24</p></td><td><p>4.83</p></td><td><p>.381</p></td><td><p>4</p></td><td><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Videogames</p></td><td><p>66</p></td><td><p>2.62</p></td><td><p>1.250</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>5</p></td><td><p>72</p></td><td><p>2.31</p></td><td><p>1.263</p></td><td><p>5</p></td><td><p>2.31</p></td><td><p>24</p></td><td><p>2.46</p></td><td><p>1.250</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Grade team part</p></td><td><p>66</p></td><td><p>10.05</p></td><td><p>2.363</p></td><td><p>5</p></td><td><p>15</p></td><td><p>72</p></td><td><p>12.00</p></td><td><p>2.600</p></td><td><p>15</p></td><td><p>12.00</p></td><td><p>24</p></td><td><p>11.46</p></td><td><p>2.377</p></td><td><p>8</p></td><td><p>15</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Grade individual part</p></td><td><p>59</p></td><td><p>8.39</p></td><td><p>3.639</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>15</p></td><td><p>64</p></td><td><p>9.84</p></td><td><p>3.768</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>15</p></td><td><p>24</p></td><td><p>11.13</p></td><td><p>2.028</p></td><td><p>7</p></td><td><p>15</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Grade intermediate</p></td><td><p>59</p></td><td><p>18.27</p></td><td><p>4.314</p></td><td><p>5</p></td><td><p>26</p></td><td><p>64</p></td><td><p>22.19</p></td><td><p>4.830</p></td><td><p>13</p></td><td><p>30</p></td><td><p>24</p></td><td><p>22.75</p></td><td><p>3.287</p></td><td><p>17</p></td><td><p>29</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Grade final</p></td><td><p>59</p></td><td><p>20.24</p></td><td><p>8.016</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>30</p></td><td><p>64</p></td><td><p>21.95</p></td><td><p>7.401</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>31</p></td><td><p>24</p></td><td><p>26.75</p></td><td><p>2.691</p></td><td><p>19</p></td><td><p>31</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Grade exam</p></td><td><p>59</p></td><td><p>19.42</p></td><td><p>5.032</p></td><td><p>8</p></td><td><p>27</p></td><td><p>64</p></td><td><p>22.06</p></td><td><p>4.963</p></td><td><p>10</p></td><td><p>31</p></td><td><p>24</p></td><td><p>24.79</p></td><td><p>1.769</p></td><td><p>21</p></td><td><p>27</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0148388877-16">Appendix 3. Backward linear regression model on Grade Team Part</hd> <p>Starting from the model (<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref87">8</reflink>) of Table 5, we run a linear regression model where the <emph>Grade Team Part</emph> is explained by <emph>Culturally Aggregated Team</emph> and by only variables in the vectors <emph>X</emph><subs>i</subs>, <emph>Y</emph><subs>i</subs>, <emph>Z</emph><subs>i</subs>, <emph>P</emph><subs>i</subs>, <emph>C</emph><subs>i</subs>, and <emph>PC</emph><subs>i</subs> that do not drop, 1 at a time, to the specification to be significant at least 10%. Shortly, the model resulting is so specified:</p> <p> <ephtml> <math display="block" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mtext>Grade</mtext><mspace width="0.25em" /><msub><mtext>Part Team</mtext><mi mathvariant="normal">i</mi></msub><mo>=</mo><mfrac linethickness="0pt"><mrow><mn>3.993</mn><mo>*</mo><mo>*</mo><mo>*</mo></mrow><mfenced close=")" open="("><mn>1.503</mn></mfenced></mfrac><mo>+</mo><mfrac linethickness="0pt"><mrow><mn>1.706</mn><mo>*</mo><mo>*</mo><mo>*</mo></mrow><mfenced close=")" open="("><mn>0.371</mn></mfenced></mfrac><mtext>Culturally</mtext><mspace width="0.25em" /><msub><mtext>Aggregated Team</mtext><mi mathvariant="normal">i</mi></msub><mo>+</mo><mfrac linethickness="0pt"><mrow><mn>0.056</mn><mo>*</mo><mo>*</mo><mo>*</mo></mrow><mfenced close=")" open="("><mn>0.016</mn></mfenced></mfrac><mtext>High</mtext><mspace width="0.25em" /><msub><mtext>School Grade</mtext><mi mathvariant="normal">i</mi></msub><mo>+</mo><mfrac linethickness="0pt"><mrow><mn>0.529</mn><mo>*</mo></mrow><mfenced close=")" open="("><mn>0.274</mn></mfenced></mfrac><mtext>Play</mtext><mspace width="0.25em" /><msub><mtext>an instrument</mtext><mi mathvariant="normal">i</mi></msub><mo>+</mo><mfrac linethickness="0pt"><mrow><mn>0.591</mn><mo>*</mo><mo>*</mo></mrow><mfenced close=")" open="("><mn>0.254</mn></mfenced></mfrac><msub><mtext>Political</mtext><mi mathvariant="normal">i</mi></msub><mo>−</mo><mfrac linethickness="0pt"><mrow><mn>0.514</mn><mo>*</mo><mo>*</mo></mrow><mfenced close=")" open="("><mn>0.242</mn></mfenced></mfrac><msub><mtext>Conference</mtext><mi mathvariant="normal">i</mi></msub><mo>+</mo><mfrac linethickness="0pt"><mrow><mn>0.350</mn><mo>*</mo></mrow><mfenced close=")" open="("><mn>0.207</mn></mfenced></mfrac><msub><mtext>News</mtext><mi mathvariant="normal">i</mi></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>ε</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">i</mi></msub></math> </ephtml> </p> <p>Graph</p> <p>with adjusted R-squared = 0.223, observations = 162, <emph>F</emph> = 8.684 <emph>p</emph>(<emph>F</emph>) < 0.01. Estimation results are sensibly greater than the ones of the full model and now, <emph>News</emph> participates at level 10% with a positive magnitude of + 0.350 points to explain <emph>Grade Team Part</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0148388877-17">Appendix 4. Evaluating cultural connection across age and passing the intermediate team test</hd> <p>To exclude potential effects of participants not commonly aged of university study, we focus on the reduced sample of 155 students aged under 28 years old.</p> <p>Table 9 Cultural aggregations and team performance. OLS and Tobit estimates for only students aged less under 30 years old</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"><p>Predictor</p></th><th colspan="6"><p>Model</p></th></tr><tr><th><p>OLS</p></th><th><p>OLS</p></th><th><p>OLS</p></th><th><p>Tobit</p></th><th><p>Tobit</p></th><th><p>Tobit</p></th></tr><tr><th /><th><p>(1)</p></th><th><p>(2)</p></th><th><p>(3)</p></th><th><p>(4)</p></th><th><p>(5)</p></th><th><p>(6)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>Culturally aggregated team</p></td><td><p>1.532***</p></td><td><p>1.586***</p></td><td><p>1.528***</p></td><td><p>1.759***</p></td><td><p>1.831***</p></td><td><p>1.742***</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>(0.391)</p></td><td><p>(0.391)</p></td><td><p>(0.389)</p></td><td><p>(0.444)</p></td><td><p>(0.448)</p></td><td><p>(0.452)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Female</p></td><td><p>0.131</p></td><td><p>0.410</p></td><td><p>0.332</p></td><td><p>0.184</p></td><td><p>0.504</p></td><td><p>0.393</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>(0.463)</p></td><td><p>(0.519)</p></td><td><p>(0.517)</p></td><td><p>(0.534)</p></td><td><p>(0.530)</p></td><td><p>(0.526)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Age</p></td><td><p>0.116</p></td><td><p>0.119</p></td><td><p>0.114</p></td><td><p>0.095</p></td><td><p>0.113</p></td><td><p>0.106</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>(0.080)</p></td><td><p>(0.084)</p></td><td><p>(0.084)</p></td><td><p>(0.080)</p></td><td><p>(0.076)</p></td><td><p>(0.077)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Area size</p></td><td><p>0.112</p></td><td><p>0.083</p></td><td><p>0.078</p></td><td><p>0.174</p></td><td><p>0.129</p></td><td><p>0.120</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>(0.144)</p></td><td><p>(0.146)</p></td><td><p>(0.147)</p></td><td><p>(0.164)</p></td><td><p>(0.160)</p></td><td><p>(0.161)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Income size</p></td><td><p>0.072</p></td><td><p>0.077</p></td><td><p>0.078</p></td><td><p>0.030</p></td><td><p>0.040</p></td><td><p>0.037</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>(0.096)</p></td><td><p>(0.096)</p></td><td><p>(0.096)</p></td><td><p>(0.112)</p></td><td><p>(0.116)</p></td><td><p>0.117</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>High school grade</p></td><td><p>0.063***</p></td><td><p>0.071***</p></td><td><p>0.068***</p></td><td><p>0.077***</p></td><td><p>0.089***</p></td><td><p>0.084***</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>(0.019)</p></td><td><p>(0.020)</p></td><td><p>(0.020)</p></td><td><p>(0.020)</p></td><td><p>(0.020)</p></td><td><p>(0.021)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Technic school</p></td><td><p>− 0.390</p></td><td><p>− 0.294</p></td><td><p>− 0.266</p></td><td><p>− 0.252</p></td><td><p>− 0.201</p></td><td><p>− 0.151</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>(0.396)</p></td><td><p>(0.407)</p></td><td><p>(0.408)</p></td><td><p>(0.438)</p></td><td><p>(0.433)</p></td><td><p>(0.439)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Grade point average</p></td><td><p>0.009</p></td><td><p>0.009</p></td><td><p>0.012</p></td><td><p>0.000</p></td><td><p>− 0.004</p></td><td><p>0.000</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>(0.038)</p></td><td><p>(0.038)</p></td><td><p>(0.038)</p></td><td><p>(0.043)</p></td><td><p>(0.045)</p></td><td><p>(0.045)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Play an instrument</p></td><td><p>0.608**</p></td><td><p>0.639**</p></td><td><p>0.637**</p></td><td><p>0.714***</p></td><td><p>0.743***</p></td><td><p>0.738***</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>(0.282)</p></td><td><p>(0.281)</p></td><td><p>(0.282)</p></td><td><p>(0.203)</p></td><td><p>(0.194)</p></td><td><p>(0.205)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Sporting</p></td><td><p>− 0.142</p></td><td><p>− 0.152</p></td><td><p>− 0.158</p></td><td><p>− 0.122</p></td><td><p>− 0.152</p></td><td><p>− 0.159</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>(0.174)</p></td><td><p>(0.185)</p></td><td><p>(0.184)</p></td><td><p>(0.185)</p></td><td><p>(0.197)</p></td><td><p>(0.196)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Political</p></td><td><p>0.510**</p></td><td><p>0.622**</p></td><td><p>0.614**</p></td><td><p>0.515*</p></td><td><p>0.665**</p></td><td><p>0.642**</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>(0.239)</p></td><td><p>(0.275)</p></td><td><p>(0.275)</p></td><td><p>(0.294)</p></td><td><p>(0.312)</p></td><td><p>(0.314)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Voluntary</p></td><td><p>− 0.171</p></td><td><p>− 0.156</p></td><td><p>− 0.191</p></td><td><p>− 0.320</p></td><td><p>− 0.263</p></td><td><p>− 0.312</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>(0.208)</p></td><td><p>(0.214)</p></td><td><p>(0.213)</p></td><td><p>(0.246)</p></td><td><p>(0.249)</p></td><td><p>(0.247)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Conference</p></td><td rowspan="16" /><td><p>− 0.467*</p></td><td><p>− 0.479</p></td><td rowspan="16" /><td><p>− 0.475</p></td><td><p>− 0.492</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>(0.265)</p></td><td><p>(0.266)</p></td><td><p>(0.350)</p></td><td><p>(0.345)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Museum</p></td><td><p>0.404</p></td><td><p>0.410</p></td><td><p>0.534</p></td><td><p>0.554</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>(0.285)</p></td><td><p>(0.285)</p></td><td><p>(0.340)</p></td><td><p>(0.339)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Book</p></td><td><p>0.055</p></td><td><p>0.072</p></td><td><p>− 0.102</p></td><td><p>− 0.076</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>(0.233)</p></td><td><p>(0.234)</p></td><td><p>(0.238)</p></td><td><p>(0.234)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>News</p></td><td><p>0.349</p></td><td><p>0.309</p></td><td><p>0.3146</p></td><td><p>0.255</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>(0.251)</p></td><td><p>(0.250)</p></td><td><p>(0.310)</p></td><td><p>(0.317)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Travel</p></td><td><p>− 0.147</p></td><td><p>− 0.147</p></td><td><p>− 0.226</p></td><td><p>− 0.226</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>(0.219)</p></td><td><p>(0.219)</p></td><td><p>(0.229)</p></td><td><p>(0.231)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Library</p></td><td><p>− 0.138</p></td><td><p>− 0.134</p></td><td><p>− 0.107</p></td><td><p>− 0.110</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>(0.205)</p></td><td><p>(0.206)</p></td><td><p>(0.215)</p></td><td><p>(0.214)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Internet</p></td><td><p>− 0.530</p></td><td /><td><p>− 0.752**</p></td><td rowspan="2" /></tr><tr><td /><td><p>(0.401)</p></td><td /><td><p>(0.372)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Videogames</p></td><td><p>0.331*</p></td><td><p>0.281*</p></td><td><p>0.389**</p></td><td><p>0.317**</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>(0.172)</p></td><td><p>(0.168)</p></td><td><p>(0.191)</p></td><td><p>(0.190)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Constant</p></td><td><p>0.986</p></td><td><p>1.225</p></td><td><p>− 0.594</p></td><td><p>0.054</p></td><td><p>1.062</p></td><td><p>− 1.423</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>(2.452)</p></td><td><p>(3.053)</p></td><td><p>(2.733)</p></td><td><p>(2.322)</p></td><td><p>(2.996)</p></td><td><p>(2.802)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Observations</p></td><td><p>155</p></td><td><p>155</p></td><td><p>155</p></td><td><p>155</p></td><td><p>155</p></td><td><p>155</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Adjusted R-squared</p></td><td><p>0.198</p></td><td><p>0.225</p></td><td><p>0.221</p></td><td colspan="3" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Dependent variable: Grade team part; standard errors (corrected for heteroscedasticity) are reported in parenthesis. Significance level: *** for <emph>p</emph> < 0.01, ** for <emph>p</emph> < 0.05, * for <emph>p</emph> < 0.10</p> <p>In the models (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref88">1</reflink>) and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref89">2</reflink>) of Table 9, we repeat the regressions (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref90">5</reflink>) and (<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref91">8</reflink>) of Table 5. In general, we find similar results with two specifications: <emph>Cultural Aggregated Team</emph> dummy has in both models a magnitude few less (+ 1.53 and + 1.58) and all two models explained better the variance of grades (<emph>adjusted R-squared</emph> = 0.199 and 0.225, respectively). In the model (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref92">3</reflink>), we delete the variable <emph>Internet</emph> since less distinctive for aggregation (4.72 over 5 in Table 1). On this particular circumstance also, the results are similar to previous ones. Finally, in the models (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref93">4</reflink>)–(<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref94">6</reflink>), we repeated the previous regressions (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref95">1</reflink>)–(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref96">3</reflink>) of Table 9 censoring the grades from 0 to 7, that is, the ones for which the test is not pass. By Tobit estimates, we find a substantial increment of grade for culturally aggregated students. In fact, the magnitude of <emph>Cultural Aggregated Team</emph> is + 1.83 in the full model (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref97">5</reflink>)</p> <hd id="AN0148388877-18">Publisher's note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0148388877-19"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref2" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Aina C, Baici E, Casalone G. Time to degree: students' abilities, university characteristics or something else? Evidence from Italy. Education Economics. 2011; 19; 3: 311-325. 10.1080/09645292.2011.585016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref5" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Aina, C, Baici, E, Casalone, G. & Pastore, F. (2018). The economics of university dropouts and delayed graduation: a survey, IZA Discussion Papers 11421, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref32" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Auta A, Maigari AU. Comparative effect of cooperative learning strategy and lecture method on the academic achievement of N.C.E. Students in electrolysis. International Journal of Pure and Applied Science Research. 2018; 11; 4: 1-10ISSN: 2384 - 5918</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref19" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Ayoubi C, Pezzoni M, Visentin F. At the origins of learning: absorbing knowledge flows from within the team. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. 2017; 134: 374-387. 10.1016/j.jebo.2016.12.020</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref38" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Berthelon M, Bettinger E, Kruger DI, Montecinos-Pearce A. The structure of peers: the impact of peer networks on academic achievement. Research in Higher Education. 2019; 60; 7: 931-959. 10.1007/s11162-018-09543-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref26" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bravo R, Catalán S, Pina JM. Analysing teamwork in higher education: an empirical study on the antecedents and consequences of team cohesiveness. Studies in Higher Education. 2019; 44; 7: 1153-1165. 10.1080/03075079.2017.1420049</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref8" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Brunello G, Comi S. Education and earnings growth: evidence from 11 European countries. Economics of Education Review. 2004; 23; 1: 75-83. 10.1016/S0272-7757(03)00048-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref11" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Brunello, G, & Schlotter, M. (2011). Non-cognitive skills and personality traits: labor market relevance and their development in education & training systems. Discussion paper series // Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit, No. 5743, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn. Urn:nbn:de:101:1-201106013933.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref18" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Buechel B, Mechtenberg L, Petersen J. If I can do it, so can you! Peer effects on perseverance. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. 2018; 155: 301-314. 10.1016/j.jebo.2018.09.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Büyükboyacı M, Robbett A. Collaboration and free-riding in team contests. Labour Economics. 2017; 49: 162-178. 10.1016/j.labeco.2017.11.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen R, Gong J. Can self-selection create high-performing teams?. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. 2018; 148: 20-33. 10.1016/j.jebo.2018.02.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chiari G. Educazione interculturale e apprendimento cooperativo: teoria e pratica della educazione tra pari. 201157: Trento; Università degli Studi di TrentoISSN 1828 – 955X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Paola M, Scoppa V. Peer group effects on the academic performance of Italian students. Applied Economics. 2010; 42; 17: 2203-2215. 10.1080/00036840701765478</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Paola M, Gioia F, Scoppa V. Free-riding and knowledge spillovers in teams: the role of social ties. European Economic Review. 2019; 112: 74-90. 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2018.12.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eisenkopf G. Peer effects, motivation and learning. Economics of Education Review. 2010; 29; 3: 364-374. 10.1016/j.econedurev.2009.08.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Falk A, Ichino A. Clean evidence on peer effects. Journal of Labor Economics. 2006; 24; 1: 39-57. 10.1086/497818</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Farzaneh N, Nejadansari D. Students' attitude towards using cooperative learning for teaching reading comprehension. Theory and Practice in Language Studies. 2014; 4; 2: 287-292. 10.4304/tpls.4.2.287-292</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feld J, Zölitz U. Understanding peer effects: on the nature, estimation, and channels of peer effects. Journal of Labor Economics. 2017; 35; 2: 387-428. 10.1086/689472</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fleming VM, Alexander JM. The benefits of peer collaboration: a replication with a delayed posttest. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2001; 26; 4: 588-601. 10.1006/ceps.2001.1082</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garibaldi P, Giavazzi F, Ichino A, Rettore E. College cost and time to complete a degree: evidence from tuition discontinuities. Review of Economics and Statistics. 2012; 94; 3: 699-711. 10.1162/REST_a_00195</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Giuliodori MJ, Lujan HL, Di Carlo SE. Collaborative group testing benefits high-and low-performing students. Advances in Physiology Education. 2008; 32; 4: 274-278. 10.1152/advan.00101.2007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gull F, Shehzad S. Effects of cooperative learning on students' academic achievement. Journal of Education and Learning. 2015; 9; 3: 246-255. 10.11591/edulearn.v9i3.2071</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hakkinen, I, & Uusitalo, R. (2003). The effect of student aid reform on graduation: a duration analysis (No. 2003:8). Working paper, Department of Economics, Uppsala University. hdl.handle.net/10419/82695. Accessed 15 May 2020.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heng, L. L, Surif, J. B, & Seng, C. H. (2014). Individual versus group argumentation: Student's performance in a Malaysian context. International Education Studies, 7(7). https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v7n7p109.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kimbrough, E. O, McGee, A. D, & Shigeoka, H. (2017). How do peers impact learning? an experimental investigation of peer-to-peer teaching and ability tracking (No. w23439). National Bureau of Economic Research.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lavasam MG, Khandan F. The effect cooperative Learning on mathematics anxiety and help seeking behavior. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2011; 15: 271-276. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.085</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lou Y, Abrami PC, D'Apollonia S. Small group and individual learning with technology: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research. 2001; 71; 3: 449. 10.3102/00346543071003449</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martins P, Pereira PT. Does education reduce wage inequality? Quantile regression evidence from 16 countries. Labour Economics. 2004; 11: 355-371. 10.1016/j.labeco.2003.05.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ocse (2017) Strategia per le competenze dell'Ocse. Italia. Sintesi di Rapporto. OCSE Pubblicazioni.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> OECD. (2012). Equity and quality in education: supporting disadvantaged students and schools. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264130852.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Orprayoon S. Effects of cooperative learning on learning achievement and group working behavior of junior students in modern French literature course. Journal of Effective Teaching. 2014; 141: 80-98ISSN-1935-7869</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poldin O, Valeeva D, Yudkevich M. Which peers matter: how social ties affect peer-group effects. Research in Higher Education. 2016; 57; 4: 448-468. 10.1007/s11162-015-9391-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rickles, J, Zeiser, K. L, Yang, R, O'Day, J, & Garet, M. S. (2019). Promoting deeper learning in high school: evidence of opportunities and outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373719837949.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Toffler A. The third wave. 1980: New York; William Morrow and Company. Inc. Toffler The Third Wave</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UNESCO (1986). The UNESCO Framework for Cultural Statistics (FCS). Statistical Commission and economic Commission for Europe, UNESCO, Conference of European Statisticians. Third Joint meeting on Cultural Statistics, 17-20 March 1986.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UNESCO (2009). Measuring cultural participation, Framework for Cultural Statistics Handbook No. 2, UNESCO Institute for cultural statistic.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UNESCO-UIS. The 2009 UNESCO Framework for Cultural Statistics (FCS). 2009: Montreal; UNESCO Institute of Statistics</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woolley AW, Chabris CF, Pentland A, Hashmi N, Malone TW. Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science. 2010; 330; 6004: 686-688. 10.1126/science.1193147</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0148388877-20"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> 18% vs. 37% European average and vs. 46% achieved by the USA and UK.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The questionnaire contained questions about students' cultural habits, divided in aggregated activities and individually activities.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Every participant joining to study was free to leave the experiment at any time and decide to return to the conventional examination scheme.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Toffler theory identifies with a term "prosumer" an individual strongly independent of the classical economy paradigm, in general, he referred to a "user" with a more active role in the creation, production, distribution, and consumption of a product. For more details, see Toffler [34]The Third Wave. New York: William Morrow.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Magna Graecia University is a small-sized public university located in the south of Italy. It has currently about 10,638 students enrolled in different degree courses and at different levels of the Italian university system. Since the 2001 reform, the Italian university system is organized around three main levels: first level degrees (3 years of legal duration), second level degrees (2 years more) and Ph.D. degrees. In order to gain a first level degree, students have to acquire a total of 180 credits. Students who have acquired a first level degree can undertake a second level degree (acquiring 120 more credits). After having accomplished their second level degree, students can enroll in a Ph.D. degree.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Respectively of the first and second year of the first level degree course in firm economy and of the second year of the second level degree course in firm economy and management.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MEF and ST are courses offered by First Level Degree called Business and Administration at the first and second year, respectively, and QMEF is offered by Second Level Degree called Business and Management Administration at the second year.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> In Italian University, the scale is ranged from 1 to 31, where the number 31 identifies 30 et laude, that is the adding encomium to 30. The exam is considered passed if the student reaches a final grade of 18 grades.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Each participant received and signed the informed consent form to allow us to use the data collected through the questionnaire; furthermore', they were informed about the rules of the experiment and how they were assigned to their team.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> In particular, 33, 54, and 18 students were mutually clustered in team of 3 individuals respectively for MEF, St, and QMEF.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The repartition experimental-control for subject was as follows: 33–33 for MEF, 36–36 for St, and 12–12 for QMEF.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> As described in the notes 9, 10, and 11, given the low number of data especially for QMEF and a similar composition of technical courses with respect to 12 items of the questionnaire (see Appendix 1) all the statistical analyses are considered for the 162 sample.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> For a major comprehension of the scale used, we remand the reader to Appendix 1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> In our study, we have no data referred to parents' education and employment.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By F. Lo Prete; E. Macrì and F. Rania</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref49"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1285402
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Team Production in a Field Experiment: Study of Aggregative vs. Individual Cultural Activities
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lo+Prete%2C+F%2E%22">Lo Prete, F.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Macrì%2C+E%2E%22">Macrì, E.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rania%2C+F%2E%22">Rania, F.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Higher+Education%3A+The+International+Journal+of+Higher+Education+Research%22"><i>Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education Research</i></searchLink>. Feb 2021 81(2):345-365.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 21
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teamwork%22">Teamwork</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cooperative+Learning%22">Cooperative Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Field+Studies%22">Field Studies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Experiments%22">Experiments</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cultural+Activities%22">Cultural Activities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Performance%22">Performance</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scores%22">Scores</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Predictor+Variables%22">Predictor Variables</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Italy%22">Italy</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10734-020-00544-z
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0018-1560
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This study aims to determine whether team production among peer groups culturally aggregated can affect the individual student performance in an Italian university. Two further hypotheses were tested in order to verify whether students perform better in team than individually and if students culturally aggregated in team perform better than students differently aggregated. By means of a field experiment, 162 students were involved in the study. The participants had the opportunity to sit a new examination model after responding to a self-reported questionnaire. The new model contemplated that the students performed in team for the first part of the program and carried out the remaining part of examination individually. The groups were composed of individuals linked by homogeneous preferences about cultural activities. The results show that team performance affects positively the final score of exam and the students culturally aggregated pass the exam more than students not culturally aggregated. The aggregative cultural activities influenced the test score more than individual effort or other personal characteristics. We therefore recommend the implementation of a new examination models based on cooperation among students supporting the aggregative cultural activities where sharing action prevails as predictors.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1285402
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1285402
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10734-020-00544-z
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 21
        StartPage: 345
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teamwork
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cooperative Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Field Studies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Experiments
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cultural Activities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Performance
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scores
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Predictor Variables
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Italy
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Team Production in a Field Experiment: Study of Aggregative vs. Individual Cultural Activities
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lo Prete, F.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Macrì, E.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rania, F.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 02
              Type: published
              Y: 2021
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0018-1560
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 81
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education Research
              Type: main
ResultId 1