View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

A Classification of Challenges Encountered in Complex Teamwork Settings

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: A Classification of Challenges Encountered in Complex Teamwork Settings
Language: English
Authors: Kazemitabar, Maedeh A., Lajoie, Susanne P., Li, Tianshu (ORCID 0000-0002-8226-993X)
Source: International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Jun 2022 17(2):225-247.
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: 23
Publication Date: 2022
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Computer Assisted Instruction, Cooperative Learning, Teamwork, Barriers, Trust (Psychology), Schemata (Cognition), Computer Software, Interaction
DOI: 10.1007/s11412-022-09370-0
ISSN: 1556-1607
1556-1615
Abstract: Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environments may at times become socio-emotionally tense and pose challenges that may have detrimental effects on mutual trust and shared mental models. Objective: This study aims to examine and classify general teamwork challenges in a novel but authentic CSCL setting (hackathon) to identify challenges that impede the development of key team coordination mechanisms (i.e., mutual trust and shared mental models). Methods: Multimodal data including responses to an adapted questionnaire (AIRE), post-competition interview data, and videos of team interaction were collected during an international hackathon event (N = 48, 71% male, M = 22 years age). Qualitative theory-driven coding and theme development were used to analyze the multimodal dataset (Greeno, 2006; Jarvenoja et al., 2013). Results: Our analyses revealed 16 general challenges that hamper teamwork in a hackathon. A model of team challenges was developed to categorize challenges into macro level themes including cognitive, motivational, emotional and behavioral challenges. We also identified which challenges hindered the development of mutual trust, and which challenges hindered the development of shared mental models. Conclusions: These findings provide important insights for educators and mentors in understanding the types of teamwork challenges that may occur in CSCL settings. The results also inform educators which challenges likely lead to mutual trust breakdown and weaken shared mental model bonds.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2022
Accession Number: EJ1343377
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHdtnT_sMLP9Afj9pQQ5mexAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDDdaizCbJSmXv7il1QIBEICBm_YcdrVWxti3AwLxiCAYLrB2NrXQzHZHWNXWJHaqkUscvTT8SkCeD6A8GP7R57v7LmaQZgN0PLRsdXkItwTQJItIaCIq4B28VT85f4Lk28k9Z0Hxu7kZqNkvF9M2zTa3fI-bUvPc7xEvmshgDibvyJp4FOlNPwhJPpWj0nPdxUxTgAyay_thnjtmARJ3gLsrzu4skcFPOUDK71Oj
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0158275542;[46ap]01jun.22;2022Aug02.11:14;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0158275542-1">A classification of Challenges encountered in Complex Teamwork Settings </title> <p>Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environments may at times become socio-emotionally tense and pose challenges that may have detrimental effects on mutual trust and shared mental models. Objective. This study aims to examine and classify general teamwork challenges in a novel but authentic CSCL setting (hackathon) to identify challenges that impede the development of key team coordination mechanisms (i.e., mutual trust and shared mental models). Methods. Multimodal data including responses to an adapted questionnaire (AIRE), post-competition interview data, and videos of team interaction were collected during an international hackathon event (N = 48, 71% male, M = 22 years age). Qualitative theory-driven coding and theme development were used to analyze the multimodal dataset (Greeno, 2006; Jarvenoja et al., 2013). Results. Our analyses revealed 16 general challenges that hamper teamwork in a hackathon. A model of team challenges was developed to categorize challenges into macro level themes including cognitive, motivational, emotional and behavioral challenges. We also identified which challenges hindered the development of mutual trust, and which challenges hindered the development of shared mental models. Conclusions. These findings provide important insights for educators and mentors in understanding the types of teamwork challenges that may occur in CSCL settings. The results also inform educators which challenges likely lead to mutual trust breakdown and weaken shared mental model bonds.</p> <p>Keywords: Cognitions; Emotions; Mutual trust; Shared mental models; Hackathon; Teamwork</p> <hd id="AN0158275542-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Humans have long used collaboration to resolve problems that exceed their individual capabilities. Effective teams may generate more creative and comprehensive solutions to challenges than an individual could produce (Gladstein, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref1">22</reflink>]). <emph>Team coordination</emph> is one of the core components of successful teamwork. Coordination includes factors such as shared mental models and mutual trust (Salas et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref2">56</reflink>]). Shared mental models refer to compatible knowledge structures among team members that enable them to communicate effectively and predict other members' actions in time (Cannon-Bowers et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref3">9</reflink>]). Mutual trust implies that team members believe each other's motives, abilities and actions are for the team's common interest (Salas et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref4">56</reflink>]). Literature in organizational psychology shows that effective team coordination has the potential to drive the team towards greater success (Salas, Reyes, & McDaniel, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref5">55</reflink>]). Computer-supported collaborative learning environments (CSCL) are the type of collaborative learning environment that incorporates computers and computer networks to facilitate collaboration. In CSCL, teams may encounter socio-emotional stress and technological obstacles throughout their collaboration, lowering team performance and decreasing the quality of the team outcomes (Rosé & Järvelä, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref6">53</reflink>]; Janssen & Kirschner, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref7">27</reflink>]). Members may spend large amounts of time resolving emerging socio-emotional conflicts during teamwork. Becoming aware of the common obstacles faced by CSCL teams is crucial to helping members to achieve a healthy team environment.</p> <hd id="AN0158275542-3">Theoretical Framework</hd> <p>A great deal of research has been invested in fields such as avionics, healthcare, management, sports and academia to understand the challenges hindering effective team coordination and collaboration (Tannenbaum et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref8">62</reflink>]). Previous organizational psychology researchers have built a wealth of knowledge on team coordination (Marlow et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref9">42</reflink>]) and on the principles of team dynamics. Salas et al., ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref10">56</reflink>]) have developed a well-known framework that deconstructs teamwork into three core mechanisms. These mechanisms are (a) closed-loop communication, (b) shared mental models and (c) mutual trust. In this section, we review the definitions of team-related concepts and the core mechanisms of coordination in work teams, and their implications in CSCL. We conclude this section with some limitations of this framework in terms of understanding team challenges in CSCL.</p> <hd id="AN0158275542-4">Teamwork and team coordination</hd> <p>A team is defined as "two or more individuals with distributed expertise interacting adaptively, interdependently, and dynamically toward a common and valued goal" (Salas et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref11">56</reflink>], p. 582). Therefore, a multidisciplinary, multi-talented team could tackle a problem from various dimensions, much beyond the capacity of individuals. Teamwork is a "set of interrelated thoughts, actions, and feelings of each team member that are needed to function as a team and that combine to facilitate coordinated, adaptive performance and task objectives resulting in value-added outcomes" (Salas et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref12">56</reflink>], p. 562). Teamwork emphasizes the interdependent competencies of team members to coordinate and cooperate, leading to effective progress towards shared goals as different demands arise throughout a project (Mohammed et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref13">47</reflink>]). Coordination is the harmonious alignment throughout a team or a system, necessary for achieving a superordinate goal effectively with order. Team members' individual abilities are not the only crucial components for team success. The collective contribution and coordination of a team is also instrumental to achieving shared goals (Wilson et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref14">67</reflink>]). However, this framework of team coordination is based on work teams and may not fully translate to learning teams. In the CSCL context, teams have unique characteristics that should be considered by researchers and educators. For instance, teams in CSCL are made up of learners, who are often assigned to collaborate on one task or project for a short period of time. Furthermore, learners have limited expertise in comparison to work teams (Kirschner & Erkens, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref15">39</reflink>]). The three core mechanisms of team coordination are elaborated as below, with considerations on CSCL implications.</p> <hd id="AN0158275542-5">Closed-Loop communication</hd> <p>Communication is the act of sharing information between individuals through a common medium, such as a common language (McIntyre & Salas, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref16">45</reflink>]). The quality of communication depends on the preciseness, clarity and timeliness of messages, as well as the appropriate vocabulary and being closed-loop. Closed-loop communication is a reciprocated form of information exchange, wherein the delivery of the intended message is confirmed by the recipient (McIntyre & Salas, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref17">45</reflink>]). From a knowledge construction theory standpoint, communication can encompass a variety of knowledge co-construction skills such as negotiating, compromising, explaining and listening (Järvenoja & Järvellä, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref18">29</reflink>]). From this perspective, communication refers to a team effort to develop an idea (Kanuka & Anderson, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref19">35</reflink>]). In CSCL, additional structure and skills may be needed in facilitating communication, as computer-mediated communication may lack the tools for effective information transaction (Fransen et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref20">20</reflink>]). In this study, we particularly examined the challenges in communication in CSCL that hamper mutual trust and shared mental models. We argue that communication is an essential element embedded in these two mechanisms, which are introduced in detail in the following sections.</p> <hd id="AN0158275542-6">Mutual Trust</hd> <p>Mutual trust, in team contexts, refers to the "shared belief that team members will perform their tasks and protect the interest of other team members" (Salas et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref21">56</reflink>], p. 561). This definition consists of two components: (a) team members feel confident in the team's competency to achieve the current task, and (b) members believe that all members' values and interests are mutually respected and protected. Trust enables members to contribute to their full potential, as without trust members may experience anxiety and become defensive (Peterson & Behfar, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref22">50</reflink>]). Trust can be fostered through positive emotions such as happiness and gratitude and can be hampered by negative emotions such as anger (Schniter & Sheremeta, 2014). When expectations are fulfilled, positive emotions are experienced, and trust is strengthened. When expectations are not met, members experience negative emotions and lowered trust. Currently, most of the findings on the linkage between mutual trust and teamwork are based on working teams and Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) teams. Research on mutual trust development in learning teams, including CSCL teams are limited, potentially due to the short-lived nature of most learning teams (Fransen et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref23">19</reflink>]). However, it is theorized that trust can be developed quickly in short-lived teams as well (Robert, Dennis & Hung, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref24">52</reflink>]; Jarvenpaa et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref25">31</reflink>]). Teams can build 'swift trust' in initial interactions as members avoid thinking of others as untrustworthy due to the limited time (Jones & George, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref26">34</reflink>]). In later stages, team members cognitively evaluate others' behavior and ability to build conditional trust. Eventually, unconditional trust could be established as members develop a habitual pattern in making trust judgement on other members (Jones & George, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref27">34</reflink>]). Although CSCL teams are often short-lived due to the nature of collaborative learning tasks, agreeable levels of swift and conditional trust could still be established in short-term interactions.</p> <hd id="AN0158275542-7">Shared Mental Models</hd> <p>Shared mental models are "knowledge structures held by members of a team that enable them to form accurate explanations and expectations for the task, and in turn coordinate their actions and adapt their behavior to the demands of the task and of other team members" (Cannon-Bowers et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref28">9</reflink>], p. 228). Team-related mental models pertain to the expected collective behavior and individual members' behaviors. Task-related mental models are on the information related to the task. Unlike work teams, CSCL teams are often assembled for a short-term project, hence members tend to focus primarily on task-related models to finish the task on time. The process of shared mental model development in learning teams also differs from that in work teams, as learning teams are able to make use of initial knowledge divergence as resources for learning and develop a larger body of shared knowledge through collaboration (Weinberger et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref29">65</reflink>]).</p> <p>To develop shared mental models, team members may have to change their knowledge structure. These changes could happen through the development, modification, and reinforcement of individual mental models (Mohammed & Dumville, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref30">46</reflink>]). Team interaction is the main source of mental model convergence (Van den Bossche et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref31">63</reflink>]). However, not all team interactions contribute to team learning because the content of an interaction between team members may not always be processed sufficiently and attentively (Jeong & Chi, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref32">33</reflink>]). Various conflicts may arise during team interaction and hamper teamwork by hindering the development of mutual trust and shared mental models.</p> <hd id="AN0158275542-8">Conflicts in teams</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0158275542-9">Conflicts</hd> <p>or disagreements might emerge when team members differ in their interpretation of situations or their tactics to resolve problems (De Dreu & Weingart, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref33">16</reflink>]; de Wit et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref34">17</reflink>]). Various studies have examined the causes of conflicts in teams (e.g., Brett et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref35">7</reflink>]; Gelfand et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref36">21</reflink>]). These conflicts can be personal or related to team incompetency. Mental models might be constrained by ineffective communication or external difficulties such as technical hurdles (Järvenoja et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref37">30</reflink>]). In fact, failure to externalize individual mental models is one of the main causes of team conflicts (Janssen & Kirschner, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref38">27</reflink>]). Mental models are developed by what is taught explicitly and what is absorbed implicitly (Kim, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref39">37</reflink>]). Knowledge structures that are implicitly integrated by an individual are challenging to explicitly share. Different communication styles, language barriers, technology-induced delays in communication, lack of time or opportunities to develop similar interpretations and sufficiently converging mental models are all barriers to externalizing mental models. These challenges are especially pronounced in international teams that have both geographical and cultural barriers (e.g., Walsham [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref40">64</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite these existing findings on the challenges that may arise in teamwork, the majority of the findings concentrate on organizational and work-team contexts. Considering the special characteristics of CSCL teams in the aspects of time limitation, team composition and the integration of technology, further research is needed to comprehensively classify the potential challenges in CSCL and how they impede team coordination mechanisms.</p> <hd id="AN0158275542-10">Hackathon as a face-to-face CSCL</hd> <p>Existing CSCL literature mostly focused on virtual learning environments (VLE), particularly textual interaction among participants and quantitative performance analysis in VLEs (e.g., Stahl [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref41">58</reflink>]). Although less studied, face-to-face CSCL environments offer rich qualitative data regarding observations of natural behaviors among team members with the support of computers (Stahl et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref42">59</reflink>]). Hackathons are fast-paced software development sessions where teams of hackers' design, program, and employ the latest technologies to build testable software prototypes in collaboration with researchers and related stakeholders (Briscoe & Mulligan, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref43">8</reflink>]; Cooper et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref44">14</reflink>]). To win a hackathon, teams strive to impress the judges by completing their intended projects in a creative manner under strict time limitations. Hackathons are valuable learning environments as they involve a combination of collaboration, creativity and technical skills (Raatikainen et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref45">51</reflink>]). Many educational domains (e.g., computer science, engineering, etc.) have started using hackathons to motivate students to engage with other students in teams and thus enhance their skills to solve real-life problems (Mtsweni & Abdullah, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref46">48</reflink>]). Furthermore, hackathons are CSCL environments that require participants to collaborate using computer tools and software, to co-construct knowledge and design a computer program. Stahl ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref47">60</reflink>]) argued that one of the benefits for using computers in a collaborative learning environment is that computers act as a tool and a medium for textual knowledge development. In Hackathons, computers are especially central to collaboration as it is the main medium to both textualize and realize ideas. Computers are used throughout the collaboration process, starting from researching and generalizing ideas to collaborative problem solving. Teams use computer and online environments heavily to share, edit and test programming scripts collaboratively. At the end of each hackathon, computers are typically the main tool for presenting and demonstrating team products. In-person hackathons take advantage of both in-person interaction and computer tools in collaboration. However, despite hackathons' suitability for team studies, there are few empirical studies that have used them as a team research context. This study thus chose a hackathon as the research context as it is a less studied face-to-face CSCL environment that provides the opportunity to gain rich insights into team interaction.</p> <hd id="AN0158275542-11">Research Objective</hd> <p>Both organizational and educational psychologists have reached the consensus that team coordination is essential for effective teamwork (Fransen et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref48">20</reflink>]). Salas et al.'s theory on team coordination ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref49">56</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref50">57</reflink>]) synthesized empirical evidence on the challenges faced by teams and the elements of team effectiveness. Although this theory of teamwork stemmed from team challenges, it does not provide any comprehensive classification of the challenges faced by teams. Furthermore, the influence of team challenges on coordination mechanisms, namely mutual trust and shared mental model development, are not specified. The need for a classification of team challenges is especially pronounced in CSCL contexts. Unlike work teams, CSCL teams are often made up of novices in the task-related subjects without a pre-established hierarchy. Unique challenges may arise as collaboration is intertwined with technology use (Ludvigsen & Arnseth, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref51">40</reflink>]). One of the primary attributes of failures in collaborative learning is students' subjectively perceived socio-emotional challenges (Crook, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref52">15</reflink>]; Jarvenoja et al., 2013). Building on existing research on the obstacles that learning teams face and the framework of team coordination in organizational psychology, this study aims to develop a comprehensive classification of CSCL team challenges and their impact on team coordination mechanisms. Comprehensively understanding the challenges faced by learning teams is the preliminary step to facilitating students' teamwork skill development.</p> <p>Through a mixed methods approach and focusing on a CSCL context of an international programming competition (hackathon), we aim to classify the internal and external challenges that teams encounter in learning. Furthermore, we aim to extend Salas et al.'s framework of core mechanisms of teamwork (2005) to educational contexts by identifying the nuances of specific team conflicts and challenges that impede the core mechanisms of teamwork, particularly mutual trust and shared mental models. We pose the following two exploratory research questions: what are the challenges that impede teamwork in a CSCL? And, which of these challenges impede the development of team coordination mechanisms, namely mutual trust and shared mental models? We describe our experimental method in the face-to-face CSCL setting.</p> <hd id="AN0158275542-12">Methods</hd> <p>To answer the research questions, three modalities of data were used: interview data, questionnaire data, and team-interaction dialogues. Using multiple data sources enriches the data analysis and enhances the trustworthiness of findings (Carter et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref53">10</reflink>]). Data analysis was based on a qualitative theory-driven thematic analysis of data, and deductive theory-driven coding and theme development. Individual responses/reactions from all team members were considered in an analysis of mutual trust and shared mental models, and for identification of challenges teams faced. In addition, descriptive statistical analysis was used to identify the most important challenges that hamper shared mental models, and mutual trust.</p> <hd id="AN0158275542-13">Context</hd> <p>The study took place at a 2-day Physics hackathon organized by a North American university's Physics department and funded by several technical organizations. The goal of this hackathon was for each team to develop a new computer program to artistically demonstrate a physics phenomenon of their choice. The venue of the hackathon included two parts: a hall with twenty stations or "team pods" where team members had access to internet and power sockets for using technologies such as laptops, and a dome projection installation where teams could present their work.</p> <hd id="AN0158275542-14">Participants</hd> <p>Prior to the study, the hackathon organizers informed participants about this study by email. The principal investigator introduced the details of this study in a short presentation at the beginning of the hackathon. Out of the 59 hackathon participants, 53 students (89%) gave consent to participate in the study. Out of the consented participants, two were minors, two participants only attended the first day of the event, and one was from a team where others had not provided consent. Thus, the final sample of the study consisted of 48 participants (71% male, <emph>M</emph> = 22 years age, <emph>SD</emph> = 3.28). Participants were primarily male which is still the norm for this type of event (Baser, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref54">2</reflink>]) despite the organizers' effort to attract female participants. To differentiate the hackathon participants from the study participants, we will refer to hackathon participants as hackathonists. The hackathonists were undergraduate or graduate students and their background expertise was mainly in Physics (42%), software engineering or computer science (19%). There were also participants from electrical, mechanical and civil engineering (31%). The hackathonists' average GPA was 3.87/4.3 (<emph>SD</emph> = 1.18). Students' ethnicities were 31% Asian, 21% Middle Eastern, and 48% Caucasian. The study was approved by the institution's Research Ethics Board. A copy of the consent form is provided in Appendix A. Hackathonists were entered into a draw for ten $40 gift cards.</p> <p>Prior to the event, hackathonists were given the opportunity to form their own teams by interacting on an online platform. The sample group has mixed within-team prior familiarity and sizes (2–5 members per team). Preliminary ANOVA analyses were run to verify whether prior familiarity within teams and team size were covariant factors influencing team coordination. Neither prior familiarity nor team size were significant factors influencing mutual trust or shared mental model development. Therefore, they are not further analyzed in the current study. Further details on the Hackathon event description, including information on event schedule, judging criteria, team formation etc. can be found in Appendix B. All appendices can be found in the supplemental section of this paper.</p> <hd id="AN0158275542-15">Materials</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0158275542-16">Questionnaires</hd> <p>After obtaining consent, the experimenter administrated a demographic questionnaire and a challenges questionnaire to the hackathonists. The challenge questionnaire is described below.</p> <p>The challenges questionnaire was adapted from Sect. 2 of the AIRE instrument (Järvenoja et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref55">30</reflink>]) to survey team-based challenges and included 12 items (e.g., "Our goals for the competition are different") that were measured using a five-point Likert scale from 0 (<emph>It did not happen</emph>) to 4 (<emph>It was a big challenge</emph>). Each item was a description of a socially distinct challenging situation. Cronbach's alpha was reported as <emph>α</emph> = 76.5, (Järvenoja et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref56">30</reflink>]) which shows that the internal consistency among items was at an acceptable level. All questionnaires were reviewed by a hackathon organizing committee member for relevance of terms and wordings; two items were removed since they were irrelevant (1. "We had different personal life circumstances, making it difficult to organize meetings" 2. One/some people were not fully committed to the group project). These two items were removed as all hackathonists were present in the two-day hackathon, without the need for teams to organize meetings. Caution was taken to only remove irrelevant items that had low loadings in their factor analyses to maintain questionnaire reliability and validity. A complete version of the questionnaire is provided in Appendix C. It should be noted that the constructs measured in the challenge measures are conceptually meaningful at the team-level. Therefore, the data gathered from individual team members to assess these team-level variables were aggregated at the team level.</p> <p>In addition to the original instrument (Järvenoja et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref57">30</reflink>]), students were requested to identify the challenges that weakened their trust among members, and the challenges that weakened their common understanding of tasks and roles. The questionnaire was distributed and collected at the end of the competition (teamwork time) and prior to the teams' presentations.</p> <hd id="AN0158275542-17">Interviews</hd> <p>Interviews were conducted after the teams' presentation. As the challenge questionnaires were collected midway through the competition, researchers used the time between questionnaire collection and interview to review the questionnaire answers. The prompts for each interview were based on the specific challenges that hackathonists reported during the hackathon, and their general experience within their team (prompts are listed in Appendix D). Team members were interviewed individually right after their presentations. All the interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim.</p> <hd id="AN0158275542-18">Video/Audio Data of teams</hd> <p>This study presents approximately eight hours of video data and 16 h of audio data which recorded the team interactions and interviews. The total English transcription document was 105 pages.</p> <hd id="AN0158275542-19">Procedure</hd> <p>The hackathon is a two-day programming competition initiated by an opening ceremony, where the information of the competition was introduced to the students participating in this event. During the opening ceremony, a researcher in this study introduced the purpose and the procedure of the study. The students were then provided with consent forms to indicate whether they would like to be included as participants in the study. The participants who consented to be included also completed a demographic questionnaire at the beginning of the competition. The competition started at noon on Day 1 and continued for 24 consecutive hours till Day 2. Teams presented their projects to the judges afterward and were evaluated. Video of team interaction and conversations were recorded during the competition. Mid-way through the competition (in the morning of Day 2), the challenge questionnaire was completed by participants. After team presentations, participants were interviewed by researchers. Video data was recorded.</p> <hd id="AN0158275542-20">Researcher description</hd> <p>The first author was the main researcher and designer of this study. She briefly informed the participants at the opening ceremony that audio/video data would be collected as well as some questionnaires to examine the hackathon team dynamics. Audio and video record data were collected with minimal interference with the normal flow of the hackathon and team interactions. At the end of the hackathon, three interviewers asked participants to elaborate on team dynamics, including challenges they faced while working collaboratively on their hackathon project. Interview data were collected to validate findings from the exploratory approach used to analyze audio and video data. Transcribers merely transcribed audio and video data based on general transcription guidelines and did not add/remove any sections. As this was exploratory research analysts searched through team interaction data to identify and categorize any challenges teams faced and the effects these challenges had on team coordination mechanisms. Since team dynamics contains innumerable explanatory variables, analysts' focus was not on team interactions holistically. Rather, analysts were trained to only focus on team challenges, mutual trust and shared mental models among team members. To reduce researcher subjectivity, multiple sources of data were collected and triangulated in inferring results, e.g., two analysts examined team interaction data with high interrater reliability rates, and their inferences were further validated with participants' questionnaire reports and interview data. These data will be further elaborated in the following sections.</p> <hd id="AN0158275542-21">Coding schemes</hd> <p>To guide data analysis, objective coding schemes were developed that could represent mutual trust, and shared mental model building within teams (beyond subjective questionnaire data). Codebooks were also created for challenges members faced during teamwork. We first employed a top-down approach in structuring the coding schemes based on previous literature and theories. We refined this initial structure of coding schemes using a bottom-up approach, augmenting new codes discovered while working through audio transcripts. This combined approach involved some re-organization of categories and specifying in greater detail the sub-categories and providing relevant examples. When a new code or sub-code was identified, the coders went back and recoded the transcripts as necessary to reflect any changes. A total of 2102 meaning units (Chi, 1997) were identified to be coded from team interactions (<emph>N</emph> = 1138) and interview data (<emph>N</emph> = 964). A principal coder and a trained coder coded approximately 10% of the meaning units. Interrater reliability was calculated based on Pearson's percentage of agreement, and an agreement rating of 74% was observed. Most disagreements were resolved through discussion.</p> <p>Interview data were used as a subjective source for data analysis, whereas transcripts of team interactions and conversations provided an objective source to the analysis of data. Three iterations of coding were performed to classify challenges the participating teams faced from interview transcripts. In the first iteration of coding, statements were coded using the challenge categories from the AIRE instrument (Järvenoja et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref58">30</reflink>]). Some of these categories were redundant (e.g., different goals and different priorities), some were irrelevant to the study context (e.g., different personal life circumstances), and some challenge types were not identified in this list. Therefore, in a second iteration of coding, predominant emergent themes were noted and used to refine the existing coding categories for a more complete list of challenges team members faced during the competition. The final codes resulted in 16 categories of challenges. These 16 challenges were first classified into internal and external challenges, then further refined to seven macro-level categories.</p> <hd id="AN0158275542-22">Results</hd> <p>Preliminary analysis was conducted to assess significance in team differences based on <emph>programming expertise levels, prior familiarity, and team size</emph>. One-way ANOVAs were conducted. It was demonstrated that these factors were not significant in influencing mutual trust and shared mental model development. Hence, they were not included in further analysis. Details on the results of the ANOVA analysis can be found in Appendix F.</p> <p>To address the first research question on the challenges that impede team effectiveness in CSCL, the challenge questionnaire (Sect. 2 of the AIRE instrument, Järvenoja et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref59">30</reflink>]) responses and interview transcripts were analyzed. First, each team member responded to the challenge questionnaire and identified the extent to which they perceived that their team had faced a challenge. A heat map representation of the challenges that teams reported is illustrated in Fig. 1. The heat map is a graphical representation of data where individual values contained in a matrix are represented as colors to indicate a range in magnitude (Wilkinson & Friendly, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref60">66</reflink>]). Colors range from dark red (representing strong challenge) to medium red (representing moderate challenges) and finally to white (representing zero or negligible challenges). Individual students' ratings are presented in columns in the heat map. For example, 1 A and 1B refer to the two members of team number 1. Based on Fig. 1, Teams 15 and 17 reported experiencing minimal challenges, whereas Teams 3 and 7 reported facing more challenges.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Heat map representation of challenges teams faced: darker cells indicate stronger challenges</p> <p>Second, transcripts of team-interaction and interview data were analyzed to triangulate the challenge questionnaire results, and to categorize the challenges faced by teams in this study. Six types of internal challenges and a general category of external challenges are identified: (a) motivational challenges refer to challenges that were due to motivational inconsistency among team members (e.g., differences in members' goals, priorities, and commitments; Blumenfeld et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref61">4</reflink>]; Järvellä et al. 2008); (b) emotional challenges were challenges that hampered the team's socio-emotional atmosphere; i.e., through inconsistencies among members' emotions (fear vs. risk-taking) or different arousal levels (one expresses high emotional reactions while another shows minimal emotional reactions to achievements/failures; (c) cognitive challenges referred to problems that hampered the team's shared cognition (e.g., difficulties in understanding others' thinking or negotiating multiple perspectives; Kirschner et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref62">38</reflink>]); and, (d) behavioral challenges referred to actions of one or multiple members of a team that challenged team performance (e.g., different interpersonal dynamics, varied working styles and divergent communication patterns; Järvenoja & Järvellä, 2009). In some cases, challenge types were found to impact multiple of the afore-mentioned macro-level categories. These challenges are categorized as: (e) cognitive/behavioral challenges, and (f) general challenges (if they affected team performance motivationally, emotionally, cognitively, and behaviorally). Apart from challenges that were based on team dynamics, some challenges were external, and were therefore labelled accordingly. Examples of such challenges could be environmental constraints, time pressure, task complexity, or high workload.</p> <p>The refined codebook was then used to complete a third iteration of coding. Using the new version of the codebook, a volunteer researcher coded a random subset of 40 meaning units and an acceptable Cohen's kappa of 0.85 was obtained. Table 1 contains descriptions of each of the 16 categories along with the frequency and percentage with which team members faced each type of challenge.</p> <p>Table 1 Challenge categories (macro-level) and their subcategories (micro-level), respective descriptions and frequencies</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Macro-Categories</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>n</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>%</p></th><th align="left"><p>Micro-categories</p></th><th align="left"><p>Description</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>n</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>%</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Motivational</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>38</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.8</p></td><td align="left"><p>Different goals/priorities</p></td><td align="left"><p>Having different goals or priorities for participating at the hackathon: one wants to win, another wants to spend a good weekend and take it easy. Not compromising.</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>38</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.8</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>Emotional</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>88</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>13.4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Unreliable members</p></td><td align="left"><p>Working with members that are not trustworthy. Not being sure if others can do their assigned tasks.</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>49</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7.3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Emotional imbalance</p></td><td align="left"><p>Showing different emotional reactions to achievements/failures.</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>25</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.0</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Negative attitudes</p></td><td align="left"><p>Complaining during problems. Contagion of negative emotions.</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="5"><p>Cognitive</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>186</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>28.3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Low SMMs</p></td><td align="left"><p>Differences in team's understanding of the tasks/responsibilities. Reaching few agreements.</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>96</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14.7</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Being off track</p></td><td align="left"><p>Being lost. Making mistakes.</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>74</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>11.3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Being idealistic</p></td><td align="left"><p>Expecting too much from others. Not accepting the reality and available resources. Setting high standards and not compromising.</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>9</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Low self-efficacy</p></td><td align="left"><p>Thinking one cannot contribute. Believing that others know more and one is useless.</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.6</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Being biased</p></td><td align="left"><p>Prior bad experiences instigating the present situation as a bad one as well.</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Behavioral</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>74</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>11.3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Incompatible working styles</p></td><td align="left"><p>Having different styles for working in a cooperation.</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>37</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.6</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Dominating</p></td><td align="left"><p>Not allowing others to contribute. Willingly taking over the work load if other team members don't understand.</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>37</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.6</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Cognitive/ Behavioral</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>101</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>15.4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Inefficient communication</p></td><td align="left"><p>Not communicating ideas, obstacles, or successes to the team.</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>36</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Unequal contributions</p></td><td align="left"><p>Not being equal in producing work: one works efficiently, another contributes significantly less.</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>65</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10.0</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>General</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>81</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>12.3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Low team cohesion</p></td><td align="left"><p>Low connection between members. Working in parallel. Not helping/updating each other while fulfilling responsibilities.</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>81</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>12.3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>External</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>89</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>13.5</p></td><td align="left"><p>High task difficulty</p></td><td align="left"><p>Technical difficulties; e.g., internet limitations, software installment errors, system bugs.</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>62</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>9.4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Limited time</p></td><td align="left"><p>Being under time pressure.</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>27</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.1</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0158275542-23">Challenges that Hamper Shared Mental Models and Mutual Trust</hd> <p>To address the second research question and identify the challenges that hamper shared mental models or mutual trust in teams, participants highlighted these challenges through the challenge questionnaire (item a., b. in Appendix A). The frequencies of participants identifying each challenge as a cause of impeded shared mental models or mutual trust were compiled as indicators of the extent to which each challenge hampers these two team mechanisms. Retrospective interviews were conducted to gather richer information on the participants' rationale for their questionnaire answers.</p> <p>Challenges that had negative effects on shared mental models in teams were reported as: being off track (73%), being idealistic (77%), incompatible working styles (50%), low or inefficient communication (62%), and dominating the conversation (70%). Figure 2 presents a summary of the challenges, their frequencies and whether their negative impacts influence shared mental models, or mutual trust. The following excerpt is an example of a student reporting why dominating decreases shared mental models in a team rather than affect trust:<emph>1B: I felt like we lacked communications.</emph></p> <hd id="AN0158275542-24">Interviewer: would this cause you to have less trust in your team members?</hd> <p> <emph>1B: well it's not about trust, it's more about I know he's competent and I know that he will do well.</emph> </p> <hd id="AN0158275542-25">Interviewer: you still trust him?</hd> <p> <emph>1B: Yeah, but it's still good to communicate and ask each other what is the next step together rather than deciding it by oneself.</emph> </p> <p>Participants reported having impaired trust in the team for the following challenge items (percentages indicate frequency of participants rating the challenge as a cause of trust violation): different goals/priorities (60%), unreliable members (86%), low self-efficacy (83%), being biased (56%), and unequal contributions (67%).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Frequency count of participants rating a challenge as a trust violation (in checkered bars), a shared mental model (shared mental models) impairment (in full colored bars), or both trust and shared mental models (in dotted bars)</p> <p>It should be noted that external challenges were not seen by students as a factor that impaired trust or shared mental models; e.g., "<emph>Sometimes it was discouraging when things didn't work, so more like just frustration. I don't think so much trust issues" (Participant 2 A).</emph> Low team cohesion was the only reported challenge to have effects on both decreased shared mental models in the team (57%), and lower mutual trust among members (62%).</p> <hd id="AN0158275542-26">Summary</hd> <p>Based on previous literature, shared mental models are developed only when <emph>agreement</emph> is reached around co-constructed <emph>understandings.</emph> However, diversity of perspectives and conflict (de Wit et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref63">17</reflink>]) may emerge when attempting to accept an unforeseen solution or a paradox. Rejection of a constructed understanding may occur when such conflicts occur leading either to a productive or counterproductive argument. Trust is built on expectations of other team members that are partially emotional (Jones & George, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref64">34</reflink>]). If these expectations are broken, individuals often experience negative emotions (e.g., anger) that may lead to trust dissolution. Unresolved challenges may lead to emotional imbalance and reduced team coordination (Van den Berg et al., 2014). In summary, regarding research question one, 16 different types of challenges that teams faced during the hackathon were identified, and these challenges were categorized into seven macro-level themes including cognitive, motivational, emotional, behavioral challenges, cognitive/behavioral, general and external challenges. Excerpts from the data were provided to better elaborate on the identified categories. Frequency counts of student perceptions from team interaction transcripts, questionnaires and interviews revealed the challenges that were more detrimental to developing mutual trust and shared mental models in teams.</p> <hd id="AN0158275542-27">Discussion</hd> <p>The purpose of this research was to extend existing theoretical frameworks on teamwork in organizational contexts to an educational and CSCL context. Multimodal data (team interaction videos, interview data, and questionnaires) were collected to identify the challenges teams faced. Seven types of challenges were identified: cognitive, motivational, emotional, and behavioral, cognitive/behavioral, general and external challenges.</p> <hd id="AN0158275542-28">Classification of Challenges Impeding Team Effectiveness in CSCL Contexts</hd> <p>The hackathon examined in this research is an authentic CSCL context that is competitive and time-limited in nature, which makes it an excellent setting to study challenges that would arise during teamwork. As the current theories and evidence on teamwork primarily come from an organizational and CSCW context (e.g., Salas et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref65">55</reflink>]), this research has the potential to contribute to the CSCL field as an exploration of extending frameworks developed with work teams to CSCL teams. Seven macro types of challenges were identified and cognitive challenges (e.g., being off track) were found to be the most prevalent, comprising 28.3% of all reported challenges. Sixteen types of challenges were identified (Fig. 3), the most prevalent being: having low shared mental models (cognitive) or low team cohesion (general), being idealistic (cognitive), being off-track (cognitive), making unequal contributions (cognitive/behavioral), experiencing high task difficulty (external), and having unreliable members (emotional). By identifying the prevailing challenges and their categories, this research provides empirical evidence on the types of challenges that CSCL teams face. The findings could benefit further research conceptualization on the obstacles and collaboration mechanisms in CSCL teams. By considering these findings, educators could be better-informed in the design of CSCL environments and prepare to assist learners to overcome these challenges.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 Extension of the challenges model by adding internal challenges: cognitive, motivational, emotional and behavioral challenges</p> <p>Although the predominant challenges may vary according to the specificities of particular collaborative contexts, we argue that categories of challenges could be generalized beyond the current hackathon context and be taken into consideration in broader CSCL and educational contexts. Identifying and categorizing the challenges related to team effectiveness is the first step to improving teamwork. The macro and micro categories of team challenges could guide educators and researchers to design corresponding regulatory interventions and strategies for group learning and collaboration. The coding scheme can be used to verify whether these challenges are generalizable across settings by replicating this study within other educational contexts and beyond, such as in health care (O'Malley et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref66">49</reflink>]), sports (McEwan & Beauchamp, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref67">44</reflink>]), or military teams (Salas et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref68">54</reflink>]). We further examined those challenges that hampered shared mental models and mutual trust among members. These challenges are described briefly in the following section. Data excerpts demonstrating examples of each challenge can be found in Section E of the Appendices.</p> <hd id="AN0158275542-29">Challenges that Hamper Shared Mental Models</hd> <p>Team members rated the following as factors that hamper their levels of shared mental models (as opposed to trust impairment): dominating the interaction, exhibiting low communication, having incompatible working styles, being idealistic, and being off track. Most of the afore-mentioned challenges have a cognitive component, which could influence both task-related and team-related mental models. The impact of each challenge on shared-mental model development is discussed below.</p> <hd id="AN0158275542-30">Dominating</hd> <p>Dominating refers to not allowing others to contribute to the shared project as much as oneself. When a member dominates, he/she may put less effort to acknowledge others' contributions, does not communicate his/her trajectory of thoughts to other members, nor their ideas for further actions. Therefore, domination impairs the sharing and communication of mental models among members. The dominating members do not share the same team-related mental models regarding each members' contribution, undermining others' work. They may hamper the communication of task-related mental models, as they dominate the team with their own understanding of tasks and related concepts. This finding is consistent with previous literature indicating that dominating members negatively influence the development of shared understandings among members and harm team performance (e.g., Citera [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref69">13</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0158275542-31">Low communication</hd> <p>As demonstrated in the literature review, communication is instrumental for the development of shared mental models (McIntyre & Salas, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref70">45</reflink>]). Literature has shown that low communication constrains externalization of individual mental models (Järvenoja et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref71">30</reflink>]). Consistent with the previous literature, the current study also found that low or inefficient communication led to poorer knowledge co-construction and shared understanding. Research on team breakdown has explored types of communication failures that decrease development of shared team mental models (e.g., Wilson et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref72">67</reflink>]). Such failures include the lack of sufficient information exchange, correct phraseology, and closed-loop communication. This study also provides examples to illustrate how these three factors can lead to inefficient communication.</p> <hd id="AN0158275542-32">Incompatible Working Styles</hd> <p>This type of challenge refers to differences in members' approaches to the task (Näykki et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref73">41</reflink>]). For instance, one member may choose to brainstorm ideas, but another may start working alone right away. Members with incompatible working styles have less opportunity to discuss their mental models with each other. The current results reflect that this challenge hinders the development of shared mental models within a team. As these differences become habitual, members may see their peer as "different" from themselves, and this may lead to lower team cohesion, less team satisfaction and decreased team performance.</p> <hd id="AN0158275542-33">Being idealistic</hd> <p>This challenge refers to unrealistic expectations of team capabilities. Surprisingly, we found that this challenge influenced shared mental model development, while the existing organizational psychology literature suggests that this challenge impedes trust: Jones & George ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref74">34</reflink>]) suggested that trust violation is a consequence of expectation violation, hence decreasing trust among members; Bosch-Sijtsema ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref75">5</reflink>]) found that expectation mismatches hamper trust building in virtual teams A potential interpretation of this finding is that, members who were idealistic put less effort into updating others or discussing their ideas with them, as they assumed others would agree with them. This finding could further inform educators of the complex negative consequences of this team challenge.</p> <hd id="AN0158275542-34">Being off Track</hd> <p>Being off track was reported as a factor that led to decreasing shared mental models. When members are lost and do not know what to do, they cannot engage in building shared mental models and instead spend their time untangling the complexities of the problem they are facing. Therefore, being lost decreases opportunities to co-construct knowledge and enhance shared mental models.</p> <p>Previous literature argued that learning teams face fewer challenges in shared-mental model development as learners have less mature mental models (Chiocchio & Essiember, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref76">12</reflink>]). However, our findings suggests that CSCL teams sometimes also experience challenges that hamper their shared mental model development. These challenges could impact the co-construction of both task-related and team-related mental models.</p> <hd id="AN0158275542-35">Challenges that hamper Mutual Trust</hd> <p>Hackathon participants reported the following factors (in descending order) as leading to lower mutual trust among members: unreliable members, low self-efficacy, unequal contributions, different priorities, and being biased. These findings contribute to addressing the dearth of CSCL literature regarding mutual trust in teams (Fransen et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref77">19</reflink>]). The relationship between these challenges and trust impairment is explained as follows:</p> <hd id="AN0158275542-36">Unreliable members</hd> <p>Having unreliable members decreases mutual trust within a team. Members cannot trust whether their peers will perform their responsibilities or not, and they cannot further delegate tasks to each other, therefore the team may become polarized between those who contribute and those who do not contribute. Unreliable team members significantly decrease team cohesion, whereby the team may suffer from internal challenges rather than collaborating with full energy towards a high-standard goal. This finding was evidenced by the analysis of Team 7 (a low performing team) where members could not rely on each other, and their prospective actions were not taken seriously. Established research has shown that reliability among members is a fundamental factor to the development of mutual trust (McAllister, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref78">43</reflink>]). Our finding demonstrates that the relationship between members' reliability and mutual trust is applicable in the CSCL context.</p> <hd id="AN0158275542-37">Low self-efficacy</hd> <p>Students reported low self-efficacy as the second major challenge to trust violation. Self-efficacy is defined as how much one believes he or she is competent in a specific area. Those who express low self-efficacy reveal signs of being unreliable, and therefore become less trustworthy (e.g., Hsu et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref79">26</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0158275542-38">Unequal contribution</hd> <p>Unequal contribution was the next reported challenge damaging mutual trust. Members of a team have different roles and responsibilities. The difficulties of their tasks vary. Furthermore, members have various competencies. In a healthy team, novice members may realize they are not contributing much, and choose to work harder to compensate for their deficiencies. However, challenges arise when a competent member does not put in much effort, or when a novice member does not try hard enough, leading to lower trust between members (e.g., Jassawalla et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref80">32</reflink>]). Although the level of trust that CSCL teams establish is often limited due to the time constraints, this finding shows that mutual trust development in CSCL teams is influenced by team dynamics like work teams.</p> <hd id="AN0158275542-39">Different priorities</hd> <p>Different priorities is another key challenge to trust violation, especially if differences are significant. For example, it may happen that one member targets winning or outperforming other teams, while another member participates to have fun. If members cannot balance their goals to a similar level, they may not trust each other and be unsatisfied in their collaboration (Järvenoja & Järvelä, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref81">28</reflink>]). For example, the member who wants to win does not assign tasks to the member who wants to have fun, and the member who wants to have fun removes him or herself from the hard worker.</p> <hd id="AN0158275542-40">Being biased</hd> <p>Being biased was reported as another factor associated with trust impairment. Being biased refers to negative pre-conceptions about another member, the task or the event from the past that influence current perceptions (Strachan, Peixoto, Emembolu & Restivo, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref82">61</reflink>]). As trust is built on a history of expectation fulfillments, negative past experiences influence beliefs of trustworthiness towards the other(s), the task or the event (Jones & George, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref83">34</reflink>]). Therefore, negative biases create a barrier against trust building.</p> <hd id="AN0158275542-41">Low cohesion</hd> <p>Low cohesion was reported as a challenge that impaired both mutual trust and shared mental models. Team cohesion is a fundamental factor in team performance (Bell et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref84">3</reflink>]) and our findings showed that lack thereof may result in cognitive, motivational, emotional, and/or behavioral challenges. Signs of team cohesion include exhibiting strong bonds and desires to remain united in pursuit of shared goals in face of conflicts, and feeling less stressed when part of the team, as opposed to when working alone (Wilson et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref85">67</reflink>]). These signs were detected through analysis of team interactions and upon interview reflections of members about their team interactions. In the context of this study, lack of team cohesion was reported as a prevalent challenge, and several teams reported low team cohesion as a challenge (teams 7, 9, 14, 16, and 18). Excerpts of data from such teams (Appendix E) have evidenced how lack of team cohesion raised new challenges. However, caution should be taken that the desire for harmony and cohesion between team members does not result in suppression of alternative viewpoints and loss of individual creativity (i.e., yielding to a mal-functioning situation of <emph>groupthink</emph> within team decision making; Golembiewski [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref86">23</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0158275542-42">Considerations for analyzing Team Challenges in CSCL</hd> <p>This study reviewed several considerations for analyzing challenges in teamwork, particularly in CSCL settings. Our findings provide empirical evidence to the analysis of team coordination in CSCL contexts. There are several considerations on how the challenges reported in this study should be interpreted and addressed.</p> <p>First, a challenge might be perceived by only one member, and others may not perceive or report it (e.g., some members might not realize that they are not contributing as much as others). Second, challenges have different depths and impact; some are more fundamental and deep-rooted (e.g., low team cohesion, inefficient communication), others are more superficial (e.g., getting lost). Fundamental challenges have a deeper impact and should be given prioritized attention. Third, some challenges are beyond team capabilities to be modified (e.g., limited time). Such challenges should not be overlooked and rather need to be acknowledged so that the team can plan accordingly: e.g., "<emph>Most of our problem comes from the fact that we didn't have enough time and we didn't consider it".</emph></p> <p>Fourth, to overcome challenges, team members should be proactive in communicating their thoughts regarding each other's behavior if they find any behavior maladaptive to team performance (i.e., they must exhibit metacognition; Flavell [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref87">18</reflink>]). For example, when there is a dominant member in the team hampering team dynamics, others should express signs of dissatisfaction (Chanel et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref88">11</reflink>]). Otherwise, the dominant member may deepen the level of challenge experienced by other members.</p> <p>Fifth, the organizational psychology literature has highlighted the importance of mutual trust and shared mental models in stressful and competitive teamwork situations (e.g., Baker et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref89">1</reflink>]). As some CSCL environments are highly stressful and competitive in nature, such as a hackathon, researchers and educators should be aware of that the importance of shared mental models and mutual trust in these situations.</p> <hd id="AN0158275542-43">Limitations and future directions</hd> <p>This research was conducted in an authentic competitive setting, with international participants. Although the setting may allow some inferences regarding the generalizability of findings, future research can further strengthen our findings by including a larger population or a more controlled context. As teams were working together in an open auditorium, background noise increased the difficulty of discussion transcription. Future research may slightly modify the data collection setting by using partitions among teams. Our study was limited to the analysis of verbal data and questionnaires, and partial nonverbal behaviors of team interactions. Future research can consider a broader range of nonverbal cues such as postures (Bousmalis et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref90">6</reflink>]), vocal characteristics (Kazemitabar et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref91">36</reflink>]), and facial expressions (Hall et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref92">25</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0158275542-44">Concluding remarks</hd> <p>This study has implications for assisting teams in challenging learning environments, including face-to-face CSCL settings. Raising team awareness of the natural challenges of teamwork (occurring even in high performing teams) can help empower teams in maintaining their coordination. While more research is necessary to fully understand the influence of challenges on team coordination mechanisms, this research provides an important first step toward helping learners adaptively manage challenging learning situations that require collaborative learning.</p> <p>Appendices of this paper can be found at: https://<ulink href="http://www.dropbox.com/s/o4ga7d1vqen2jyc/supplemental%20information%20IJCSCL.pdf?dl=0">www.dropbox.com/s/o4ga7d1vqen2jyc/supplemental%20information%20IJCSCL.pdf?dl=0</ulink>.</p> <hd id="AN0158275542-45">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>This study is funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC Partnership Grant) and the Fonds de Recherche du Québec – Société et Culture (FRQSC). We confirm that this manuscript has not been submitted elsewhere and we have no conflicts of interest to declare. Raw and processed data from this study are available upon enquiry to corresponding authors. This study is approved by the McGill University ethics board. Written consent was collected from participants to document their voluntary participation. The authors for this manuscript declare consent for the International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning to review and evaluate this manuscript for publication.</p> <hd id="AN0158275542-46">Publisher's note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0158275542-47"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref89" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Baker DP, Day R, Salas E. Teamwork as an essential component of high-reliability organizations. Health Services Research. 2006; 41; 1: 1576-1598. 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00566.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref54" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Baser M. Attitude, gender and achievement in computer programming. Online Submission. 2013; 14; 2: 248-255. 10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2013.14.2.2007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref84" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bell ST, Brown SG, Colaneri A, Outland N. Team composition and the ABCs of teamwork. American Psychologist. 2018; 73; 4: 349-362. 10.1037/amp0000305</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref61" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Blumenfeld P, Marx R, Soloway E, Krajcik J. Learning with peers: From small group cooperation to collaborative communities. Educational Researcher. 1996; 25; 8: 37-40. 10.3102/0013189X025008037</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref75" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bosch-Sijtsema P. The impact of individual expectations and expectation conflicts on virtual teams. Group & Organization Management. 2007; 32; 3: 358-388. 10.1177/1059601106286881</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref90" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bousmalis, K, Mehu, M, & Pantic, M. (2009). Spotting agreement and disagreement: A survey of nonverbal audiovisual cues and tools. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (pp. 1–9). New York, Heidelberg: Springer</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref35" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Brett J, Behfar K, Sanchez-Burks JAshkanasy A, Ayoko O, Jehn KA. Managing cross-cultural conflicts: A close look at the implication of direct versus indirect confrontation. Handbook of research in conflict management. 2014: United Kingdom; Edward Edgar Publishing: 136-154</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref43" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Briscoe, G, & Mulligan, C. (2014). The hackathon phenomenon. Retrieved from: <ulink href="http://www.creativeworkslondon.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Digital-InnovationThe-Hackathon-Phenomenon1.pdf">http://www.creativeworkslondon.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Digital-InnovationThe-Hackathon-Phenomenon1.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref3" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E, Converse SA, Castellan NJ. Current issues in individual and group decision making. 1993: Hillsdale, NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carter, N, Bryant-Lukosius, D, DiCenso, A, Blythe, J, & Neville, A. J. (2014). The use of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41(5), 545–547. 10.1188/14.ONF.545–547</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chanel, G, Avry, S, Molinari, G, Bétrancourt, M, & Pun, T. (2017). Multiple users' emotion recognition: Improving performance by joint modeling of affective reactions. In the Seventh International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction, (pp. 92–97). New York, Heidelberg: Springer</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chiocchio F, Essiembre H. Cohesion and performance. Small Group Research. 2009; 40: 382-420. 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00239.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Citera M. Distributed teamwork: The impact of communication media on influence and decision quality. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 1998; 49; 9: 792-800. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199807)49:9<792:AID-ASI4>3.0.CO;2-K</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cooper K, Siefert A, Weinreb J. Skills beyond the reading room: Training in innovation and collaboration at a radiology hackathon. Journal of the American College of Radiology. 2018; 15; 3: 466-468. 10.1016/j.jacr.2017.10.025</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crook, C. (2000). Motivation and the ecology of collaborative learning.Rethinking collaborative learning,161–178</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Dreu C, Weingart L. Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2003; 88; 4: 741-749. 10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Wit F, Greer L, Jehn K. The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2012; 97; 2: 360-390. 10.1037/a0024844</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flavell JH. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist. 1979; 34; 10: 906-911. 10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fransen J, Kirschner PA, Erkens G. Mediating team effectiveness in the context of collaborative learning: The importance of team and task awareness. Computers in human Behavior. 2011; 27; 3: 1103-1113. 10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.017</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fransen J, Weinberger A, Kirschner PA. Team effectiveness and team development in CSCL. Educational Psychologist. 2013; 48; 1: 9-24. 10.1080/00461520.2012.747947</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gelfand MJ, Harrington JR, Leslie LMAyoko O, Ashkanasy N, Jehn K. Conflict cultures: a new frontier for conflict management research and practice. Handbook of conflict management research. 2014: Northampton, MA; Edward Elgar Publishing: 109-135</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gladstein DL. Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1984; 29; 1: 499-517. 10.2307/2392936</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Golembiewski RTShafritz J. Groupthink. Defining public administration. 2018: Springer; Routledge: 147-150. 10.4324/9780429501074-15</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greeno JG, Engeström YSawyer K. Learning in activity. Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. 2006: New York; Cambridge University Press: 79-96</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hall JA, Horgan TG, Murphy NA. Nonverbal communication. Annual Review of Psychology. 2019; 70: 271-294. 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103145</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hsu MH, Ju TL, Yen CH, Chang CM. Knowledge sharing behavior in virtual communities: The relationship between trust, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 2007; 65; 2: 153-169. 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.09.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Janssen, J, & Kirschner, P. A. (2020). Applying collaborative cognitive load theory to computer-supported collaborative learning: Towards a research agenda.Educational Technology Research and Development,1–23</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Järvelä S, Järvenoja H. Socially constructed self-regulated learning and motivation regulation in collaborative learning groups. Teachers College Record. 2011; 113; 2: 350-374. 10.1177/016146811111300205</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Järvenoja H, Järvelä S. Emotion control in collaborative learning situations: Do students regulate emotions evoked by social challenges?. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2009; 79; 3: 463-481. 10.1348/000709909X402811</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Järvenoja H, Volet S, Järvelä S. Regulation of emotions in socially challenging learning situations: An instrument to measure the adaptive and social nature of the regulation process. Educational Psychology. 2013; 33; 1: 31-58. 10.1080/01443410.2012.742334</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jarvenpaa SL, Shaw TR, Staples DS. Toward contextualized theories of trust: The role of trust in global virtual teams. Information Systems Research. 2004; 15; 3: 250-267. 10.1287/isre.1040.0028</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jassawalla A, Sashittal H, Sashittal A. Students' perceptions of social loafing: Its antecedents and consequences in undergraduate business classroom teams. Academy of Management Learning & Education. 2009; 8; 1: 42-54. 10.5465/amle.2009.37012178</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jeong H, Chi MT. Knowledge convergence and collaborative learning. Instructional Science. 2007; 35; 4: 287-315. 10.1007/s11251-006-9008-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones GR, George JM. The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Review. 1998; 23; 3: 531-546. 10.5465/amr.1998.926625</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kanuka H, Anderson T. Ethical issues in qualitative e-learning research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 2007; 6; 2: 1-14. 10.1177/160940690700600204</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kazemitabar M, Lajoie SP, Doleck T. Examining changes in medical students' emotion regulation in an online PBL session. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal. 2019; 11; 2: 129-157</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim DHKlein D. The link between individual and organizational learning. The strategic management of intellectual capital. 1998: Boston; Butterworth-Heinemann: 41-62. 10.1016/B978-0-7506-9850-4.50006-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirschner PA, Beers PJ, Boshuizen HP, Gijselaers WH. Coercing shared knowledge in collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior. 2008; 24; 2: 403-420. 10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.028</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirschner PA, Erkens G. Toward a Framework for CSCL Research. Educational Psychologist. 2013; 48; 1: 1-8. 10.1080/00461520.2012.750227</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ludvigsen S, Arnseth HC. Computer-supported collaborative learning. Technology enhanced learning. 2017: Cham; Springer: 47-58. 10.1007/978-3-319-02600-8_5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Näykki P, Järvelä S, Kirschner PA, Järvenoja H. Socio-emotional conflict in collaborative learning—A process-oriented case study in a higher education context. International Journal of Educational Research. 2014; 68: 1-14. 10.1016/j.ijer.2014.07.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marlow SL, Lacerenza CN, Salas E. Communication in virtual teams: A conceptual framework and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review. 2017; 27; 4: 575-589. 10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McAllister DJ. Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal. 1995; 38; 1: 24-59. 10.5465/256727</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McEwan D, Beauchamp MR. Teamwork in sport: A theoretical and integrative review. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 2014; 7; 1: 229-250. 10.1080/1750984X.2014.932423</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McIntyre RM, Salas EGuzzo R, Salas E. Measuring and managing for team performance: Emerging principles from complex environments. Team effectiveness and decision-making in organizations. 1995: San Francisco, CA; Jossey-Bass: 9-45</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mohammed S, Dumville BC. Team mental models in a team knowledge framework: Expanding theory and measurement across disciplinary boundaries. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2001; 22; 2: 89-106. 10.1002/job.86</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mohammed S, Ferzandi L, Hamilton K. Metaphor no more: A 15-year review of the team mental model construct. Journal of Management. 2010; 36; 4: 876-910. 10.1177/0149206309356804</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mtsweni J, Abdullah H. Stimulating and maintaining students' interest in computer science using the hackathon model. The Independent Journal of Teaching and Learning. 2015; 10; 1: 85-97</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Malley AS, Gourevitch R, Draper K, Bond A, Tirodkar MA. Overcoming challenges to teamwork in patient-centered medical homes: A qualitative study. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2015; 30; 2: 183-192. 10.1007/s11606-014-3065-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peterson RS, Behfar KJ. The dynamic relationship between performance feedback, trust, and conflict in groups: A longitudinal study. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2003; 92; 1: 102-112. 10.1016/S0749-5978(03)00090-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raatikainen, M, Komssi, M, Bianco, D, Kindstom, V, K, & Jarvinen, J. (2013). Industrial experiences of organizing a hackathon to assess a device-centric cloud ecosystem. In the 37th annual computer software and applications conference (pp. 790–799). New York: IEEE</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robert LP, Denis AR, Hung YC. Individual swift trust and knowledge-based trust in face-to-face and virtual team members. Journal of Management Information Systems. 2009; 26; 2: 241-279. 10.2753/MIS0742-1222260210</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosé, C. P, & Järvelä, S. (2020). Building community together: towards equitable CSCL practices and processes.International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,1–7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Salas E, Milham LM, Bowers CA. Training evaluation in the military: Misconceptions, opportunities, and challenges. Military Psychology. 2003; 15; 1: 3-16. 10.1207/S15327876MP1501_01</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Salas R, McDaniel. The science of teamwork: Progress, reflections, and the road ahead. American Psychologist. 2018; 73; 4: 593. 10.1037/amp0000334</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Salas E, Sims DE, Burke CS. Is there a "Big Five" in teamwork?. Small Group Research. 2005; 36; 5: 555-599. 10.1177/1046496405277134</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Salas, E, Stagl, K. C, Burke, C. S, & Goodwin, G. F. (2007). Fostering team effectiveness in organizations: Toward an integrative theoretical framework. In J. Shuart, W. Spaulding & J. Poland (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 185–235). Lincoln: Nebraska University Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stahl, G. (Ed.). (2009). Studying virtual math teams (11 vol.). Springer Science & Business Media</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stahl G, Koschmann T, Suthers DSawyer RK. Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. 2006: Cambridge, UK; Cambridge University Press: 409-426</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stahl G. A decade of CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. 2015; 10; 4: 337-344. 10.1007/s11412-015-9222-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strachan, R, Peixoto, A, Emembolu, I, & Restivo, M. T. (2018, April). Women in engineering: Addressing the gender gap, exploring trust and our unconscious bias. In 2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 2088–2093). IEEE</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tannenbaum, S. I, Traylor, A. M, Thomas, E. J, & Salas, E. (2020). Managing teamwork in the face of pandemic: evidence-based tips. BMJ Quality & Safety</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van den Bossche P, Gijselaers W, Segers M, Woltjer G, Kirschner P. Team learning: Building shared mental models. Instructional Science. 2010; 39; 3: 283-301. 10.1007/s11251-010-9128-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walsham, G. (2002). Cross-cultural software production and use: a structurational analysis.MIS quarterly,359–380</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weinberger A, Stegmann K, Fischer F. Knowledge convergence in collaborative learning: Concepts and assessment. Learning and Instruction. 2007; 17; 4: 416-426. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.03.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilkinson L, Friendly M. The history of the cluster heat map. The American Statistician. 2009; 63; 2: 179-184. 10.1198/tas.2009.0033</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson KA, Salas E, Priest H, Andrews D. Errors in the heat of the battle: Taking a closer look at shared cognition breakdowns through teamwork. Human Factors. 2007; 49; 2: 243-256. 10.1518/001872007X312478</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Maedeh A. Kazemitabar; Susanne P. Lajoie and Tianshu Li</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref92"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1343377
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: A Classification of Challenges Encountered in Complex Teamwork Settings
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kazemitabar%2C+Maedeh+A%2E%22">Kazemitabar, Maedeh A.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lajoie%2C+Susanne+P%2E%22">Lajoie, Susanne P.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Li%2C+Tianshu%22">Li, Tianshu</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8226-993X">0000-0002-8226-993X</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22International+Journal+of+Computer-Supported+Collaborative+Learning%22"><i>International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning</i></searchLink>. Jun 2022 17(2):225-247.
– 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: 23
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Assisted+Instruction%22">Computer Assisted Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cooperative+Learning%22">Cooperative Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teamwork%22">Teamwork</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Barriers%22">Barriers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Trust+%28Psychology%29%22">Trust (Psychology)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Schemata+%28Cognition%29%22">Schemata (Cognition)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Software%22">Computer Software</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interaction%22">Interaction</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s11412-022-09370-0
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1556-1607<br />1556-1615
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environments may at times become socio-emotionally tense and pose challenges that may have detrimental effects on mutual trust and shared mental models. Objective: This study aims to examine and classify general teamwork challenges in a novel but authentic CSCL setting (hackathon) to identify challenges that impede the development of key team coordination mechanisms (i.e., mutual trust and shared mental models). Methods: Multimodal data including responses to an adapted questionnaire (AIRE), post-competition interview data, and videos of team interaction were collected during an international hackathon event (N = 48, 71% male, M = 22 years age). Qualitative theory-driven coding and theme development were used to analyze the multimodal dataset (Greeno, 2006; Jarvenoja et al., 2013). Results: Our analyses revealed 16 general challenges that hamper teamwork in a hackathon. A model of team challenges was developed to categorize challenges into macro level themes including cognitive, motivational, emotional and behavioral challenges. We also identified which challenges hindered the development of mutual trust, and which challenges hindered the development of shared mental models. Conclusions: These findings provide important insights for educators and mentors in understanding the types of teamwork challenges that may occur in CSCL settings. The results also inform educators which challenges likely lead to mutual trust breakdown and weaken shared mental model bonds.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1343377
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1343377
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s11412-022-09370-0
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 23
        StartPage: 225
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Computer Assisted Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cooperative Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teamwork
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Barriers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Trust (Psychology)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Schemata (Cognition)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Computer Software
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interaction
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: A Classification of Challenges Encountered in Complex Teamwork Settings
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kazemitabar, Maedeh A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lajoie, Susanne P.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Li, Tianshu
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 06
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1556-1607
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1556-1615
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 17
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning
              Type: main
ResultId 1