View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Assessment for Learning of Design Teamwork Skills

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Assessment for Learning of Design Teamwork Skills
Language: English
Authors: Tessier, Virginie (ORCID 0000-0002-9243-365X), Carbonneau-Loiselle, Mathilde
Source: International Journal of Art & Design Education. Aug 2023 42(3):420-438.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 19
Publication Date: 2023
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Design, Teamwork, Cooperative Learning, Program Implementation, Models, Skill Development, Educational Assessment
DOI: 10.1111/jade.12461
ISSN: 1476-8062
Abstract: This article seeks to contribute to the reflection around the training of future designers regarding teamwork. Collaboration, teamwork and negotiations are common everyday interactions that are now known to contribute positively to the design process. This article builds on a theoretical model that was initially proposed as a Ph.D. thesis contribution: the zone of proximal development for learning teamwork skills. The objective of this article is to share the first implementation of the model in a real educational situation and seize this opportunity to develop it further. The framework of assessment for learning and the concept of the zone of proximal development guide this research. The data collection is based on the observations of teamwork during a design seminar. The analysis is structured around the theoretical definitions of the model's components and in situ observations of the participants. This process guides us to share indicators allowing to confirm if a level or set of skills are achieved by a student. Plus, we propose a set of related teaching guidance to use when skills are identified as underdeveloped or to develop. Through this work, we wish to discuss how design students can be better equipped to enter the profession and play a significant role as team players.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1387546
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwF6NB1EhPnOGjwqbFGk-B2fAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDK-QzR-R9b86yX0zcAIBEICBm5V-UalNRfJsfV1mC4xqK12wgLT1OKf1Lh5J-jsM8wJIuSq497Wi1hen4vgWpwn--AdFRGDKpJAJMfNnU7u6U2g01KhPJgTVZ4qib9_45VcGvC0H5bznJa7pMpLtxIJ0Y43IsarI_wqF80k9WWhz2UTHQnSoUOtN01yyCOdpVP0nXOUP3yCIGfNohPiErIeQhwyTAoPxWVs-bKd_
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0169810943;q0t01aug.23;2023Aug09.06:01;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0169810943-1">Assessment for Learning of Design Teamwork Skills </title> <p>This article seeks to contribute to the reflection around the training of future designers regarding teamwork. Collaboration, teamwork and negotiations are common everyday interactions that are now known to contribute positively to the design process. This article builds on a theoretical model that was initially proposed as a Ph.D. thesis contribution: the zone of proximal development for learning teamwork skills. The objective of this article is to share the first implementation of the model in a real educational situation and seize this opportunity to develop it further. The framework of assessment for learning and the concept of the zone of proximal development guide this research. The data collection is based on the observations of teamwork during a design seminar. The analysis is structured around the theoretical definitions of the model's components and in situ observations of the participants. This process guides us to share indicators allowing to confirm if a level or set of skills are achieved by a student. Plus, we propose a set of related teaching guidance to use when skills are identified as underdeveloped or to develop. Through this work, we wish to discuss how design students can be better equipped to enter the profession and play a significant role as team players.</p> <p>Keywords: assessment for learning; design; education; teamwork; zone of proximal development</p> <hd id="AN0169810943-2">Introduction</hd> <p>As discussed by Newman ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref1">15</reflink>]), learning happens at the limit of one's comfort zone. The author makes a point that discomfort and challenges stimulate development. This article will emphasise the importance of teamwork to prepare novices for the complex and social nature of design. We will share a framework to develop skills for collaboration, which is crucial as professional practice is now largely based on interdisciplinarity (Noël [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref2">16</reflink>]).</p> <p>Design practice has evolved tremendously in the last decades: it migrated from a lonely creative to a team player whose ideas are enriched through interactions. As we affirmed in a past publication, 'the designer has become a generalist that masters a creative process and analytical skills to converge to meaningful and inventive propositions' (Tessier [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref3">21</reflink>]). Ambiguity and ill‐defined problems characterise the zone where the designer usually thrives (McDonnell [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref4">14</reflink>]).</p> <p>The work presented in this article is based on the first author's Ph.D. which aimed at developing a framework for collaboration (Tessier & Zahedi [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref5">20</reflink>]; Tessier [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref6">21</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref7">22</reflink>]). Considered an exploratory phase of a more global endeavour, the study aimed to grasp the complexity of team learning and propose ways to improve learning in the long term. Ultimately, we wish to contribute to design training so that novices arrive better prepared for the profession by valuing the strengths of others.</p> <p>First, we present the theoretical concepts that form our perspective regarding the training of professionals: the framework of assessment <emph>for</emph> learning and the concept of the zone of proximal development. These will allow us to introduce the exploratory model of the zone of proximal development for learning teamwork skills model. In an attempt to further study the implementation of this model and its impact on teamwork, we will refer to data collected in a team learning situation. The data collected <emph>in situ</emph> is then analysed according to the theoretical foundations, guiding us to propose practical indicators to enhance the development of specific teamwork skills and facilitate training.</p> <hd id="AN0169810943-3">Assessment for Learning</hd> <p>Evaluations are fundamental activities of educational institutions at all levels. Once valued to impose sanctions (Kvale [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref8">12</reflink>]), assessment is now recognised as a practice that can influence learning and motivation (Gibbs [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref9">8</reflink>]; Boud & Falchikov [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref10">5</reflink>]).</p> <p>According to David Boud ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref11">4</reflink>]; Boud & Soler [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref12">6</reflink>])—professor and researcher expert in evaluation—pedagogical assessment can hold three distinct roles: certification, aiding learning and preparing for long‐term learning.</p> <hd id="AN0169810943-4">Certification</hd> <p>The first aim of assessment is the most acknowledged. Certification is put into practice at the end of a learning sequence (through summative assessment activities) to confirm the acquisition of specific skills and knowledge (Sainsbury & Walker [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref13">17</reflink>]). Certificative assessment serves various purposes (i.e. select candidates, attest learning, compare individual and group levels).</p> <hd id="AN0169810943-5">Aiding learning</hd> <p>The second purpose of assessment emerged from the works of Scriven ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref14">18</reflink>]) in reaction to summative evaluations. Scriven contrasted summative and formative practices. The latter form of assessment proposes the accompaniment of learners with feedback and constructive comments (Black & Wiliam [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref15">2</reflink>]; Hattie & Timperley [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref16">10</reflink>]). Formative evaluations are most often organised during a learning sequence to encourage the refinement of skills or knowledge. It also encourages the adaptation of teaching practices and activities according to the individual or group level (Gipps [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref17">9</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0169810943-6">Preparing for long‐term learning</hd> <p>Third, Boud identified the final role of assessment as 'preparing for long‐term learning'. More precisely, assessment seeks to develop the learner's autonomy for future learning. In that sense, assessment is 'sustainable' when it 'meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of students to meet their own future learning needs' (Boud [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref18">4</reflink>], 151). Long‐term learning encourages development to ensure the progression of professionals alongside new practices.</p> <p>This third role relates to the framework of assessment <emph>for</emph> learning (AfL, as opposed to assessment <emph>of</emph> learning). This relatively recent assessment paradigm was proposed by the Assessment Reform Group (2002, ARG) based on Black and William's works (Black & Wiliam [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref19">2</reflink>]; Black & William [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref20">3</reflink>]; Black <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref21">1</reflink>]; Taras [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref22">19</reflink>]). As listed in Figure 1, the ARG proposed 10 fundamental principles.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/Q0T/01aug23/jade12461-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jade12461-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Assessment Reform Group's Principles of Assessment for Learning. Broadfoot et al. ([7])." /> </p> <p></p> <p>William ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref23">25</reflink>], 10) highlighted that 'assessment for learning is any assessment for which the priority in its design and practice is to serve the purpose of promoting students' learning'. According to this author, two features are essential to the operationalisation of assessment for learning. We propose a third feature based on the ARG's definition:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Assessment should provide <emph>insights</emph> on how to reach higher developmental levels.</item> <p></p> <item> Assessment should bring the learner to <emph>take action</emph> in reaching higher developmental levels.</item> <p></p> <item> Assessment should be considered as a process towards growth and learning (Broadfoot <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref24">7</reflink>] , 2–3).</item> </ulist> <p>Assessment <emph>for</emph> learning bears similarities with the concept of the zone of proximal development, which we present in the next section, as they both seek to develop learning autonomy.</p> <hd id="AN0169810943-8">The Zone of Proximal Development for Learning Teamwork Skills Model</hd> <p>The zone of proximal development for learning teamwork skills model (also, ZPD teamwork skills model) is the result of the first author's Ph.D. research. It offers a structured interpretation of students' progression to becoming experts in team dynamics during a typical design program. As we will describe, the model allows to scaffold teamwork learning across different levels, while also encouraging a global interpretation of the experience. Before describing our model in detail, we will introduce its most important theoretical foundation: the zone of proximal development (ZPD).</p> <hd id="AN0169810943-9">Zone of proximal development</hd> <p>The ZPD is a concept proposed by the Soviet psychologist Lev Vygotsky as a result of his studies on child development. The concept values social interactions to enhance learning and development (Gipps [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref25">9</reflink>]). Social influence can motivate deeper learning through questioning, helping or guiding learners. In other words, 'Vygotsky argued that through social interactions students may reach a higher state of development than they would achieve by working and studying on their own' (Helle <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref26">11</reflink>], 297).</p> <p>This concept is typically defined as:</p> <p> <emph>[...] the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem‐solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem‐solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers</emph>. <emph>(</emph>Vygotsky [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref27">24</reflink>]<emph>, 86)</emph></p> <p>As shown in Figure 2, the ZPD is modelled by using three overlapping circles. Each zone created by this overlap refers to a set of skills or knowledge at a point in time: what the learner can do alone, what he or she can do with external support and the limits of what he or she can do. We interpret the model as a cycle in which the realm of skills keeps evolving as a person develops.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/Q0T/01aug23/jade12461-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jade12461-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Zone of Proximal Development." /> </p> <p></p> <p>The ZPD influenced in several ways the construction of the ZPD teamwork skills model, which is presented next. First, it provided a simple visual organisation to distribute our findings. Second, it encouraged the development of teamwork‐related skills through social stimulation. Finally, it favoured the development of autonomy for learning as a goal that can be supported collectively.</p> <hd id="AN0169810943-11">Zone of proximal development for learning teamwork skills model</hd> <p>The zone of proximal development for learning teamwork skills model (Figure 3) was proposed as the result of a close analysis of design students experiencing team projects as part of their second‐, third‐ or fourth‐year studio class. A multi‐levelled analysis paired with the coding of weekly questionnaires and one‐to‐one interviews allowed a deep comprehension of the students' lived experiences (for more details see: Author's PhD thesis, Tessier [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref28">23</reflink>]).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/Q0T/01aug23/jade12461-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jade12461-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 Zone of Proximal Development for Learning Teamwork Skills Model." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Data analysis followed an open and emerging coding strategy which allowed to make sense of a large quantity of information by building bridges between all participants. The analysis was synthesised into a selection of 33 codes, organised into five zones.</p> <p>The first zone is the 'personal zone', which includes all characteristics related to individual motivation, confidence, stress management, concentration and self‐assertiveness. The second zone is the 'project zone', which distinguishes between the levels of skills related to the conduction of a project (e.g. expressing ideas, taking initiatives, creating shared understanding or receiving feedback). The 'organisational zone' focuses on offering structure over the length of the project and between team members (time management, deadlines, work distribution, priorities, disciplinary expertise, etc.). It is followed by the 'learning zone' which focuses on project‐specific knowledge. It includes all elements related to technical and technological tools, thematic and disciplinary knowledge, complementary skills, expert advice and project authenticity. Finally, the last zone is the 'social zone', which offers a focus on person‐to‐person relations through communication, team ambiance, creation of team hierarchy, agreeing on decisions and scheduling team meetings. These five zones compose our global interpretation of teamwork experiences in a design learning environment.</p> <p>These zones are summarised in the ZPD teamwork model with keywords retrieved from the synthesis of students' experiences. The keywords also translate three levels of complexity, which correspond to a training level (most typically, from the first to the third or fourth year of a bachelor program). Table 1 provides definitions of each level of the model.</p> <p>1 TABLE Definitions of the model's levels</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th>Definitions</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Project zone</td></tr><tr><td>Level 1, Adaptation</td><td>Capacity to regulate behaviours according to the requirements.</td></tr><tr><td>Level 2, Concentration</td><td>Stay focused on the project and avoid unnecessary stimuli.</td></tr><tr><td>Level 3, Assertiveness</td><td>Self‐affirmation to build a personal and professional identity (opinions, ideas, expertise, etc.).</td></tr><tr><td>Project zone</td></tr><tr><td>Level 1, Process</td><td>Show mastery and understanding of the design process.</td></tr><tr><td>Level 2, Initiative</td><td>Propose moves for the project, initiate frames, and navigate the project.</td></tr><tr><td>Level 3, Complexity and feasibility</td><td>Assess the level of complexity of the project and its real‐life credibility.</td></tr><tr><td>Organisational zone</td></tr><tr><td>Level 1, Organisation</td><td>Develop organisational skills to facilitate task distribution in the team.</td></tr><tr><td>Level 2, Efficiency</td><td>Gain autonomy to plan and fulfill tasks.</td></tr><tr><td>Level 3, Prioritisation</td><td>Organise tasks hierarchy and priorities according to time frame, objectives, responsibilities, etc.</td></tr><tr><td>Learning zone</td></tr><tr><td>Level 1, Tools</td><td>Show mastery of basic design tools (sketch, software, instruments, etc.).</td></tr><tr><td>Level 2, Skills development</td><td>Global improvement of disciplinary and soft skills.</td></tr><tr><td>Level 3, Authenticity</td><td>Ability to navigate real‐life inspired project contexts.</td></tr><tr><td>Social zone</td></tr><tr><td>Level 1, Communication</td><td>Exchange with others, accept different opinions, recognise each other's strengths and manage conflicts.</td></tr><tr><td>Level 2, Express position</td><td>Capacity to discuss a choice, decision, opinion or position.</td></tr><tr><td>Level 3, Build an argument</td><td>Affirmation to build professional identity through priority and idea negotiations.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0169810943-13">Limitations of the theoretical model</hd> <p>Since the model was proposed as a contribution of an exploratory research, its impact has been mainly theoretical. No practical applications have been initiated until now. This was considered a major limit to the dissemination of the model since no contextual applications could be shared. As described next, the research shared in this paper seeks to test the first implementation of the model in a learning context.</p> <hd id="AN0169810943-14">Methodology: Model Implementation in a Learning Context</hd> <p>The model was tested as part of a seminar entitled <emph>Elements of design thinking</emph> during the Autumn 2021 semester at the Faculty of Environmental Design of Univerisity of Montreal. The seminar took place over 5 weeks with weekly 3‐hour sessions. Nine students participated in the seminar: six were honorary students of the industrial design bachelor program, one from a design master's program and two were Ph.D. candidates. As part of the class organisation, the students were divided into two teams, with one Ph.D. candidate in each group supervising the activities. For this article, we focus on the data collected in one of the two groups as a starting point (Table 2).</p> <p>2 TABLE Description of participants, group 1</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th>Participant 1</th><th>Participant 2</th><th>Participant 3</th><th>Participant 4</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Level of training</td><td>Second year, graduate</td><td>Honorary fourth‐year undergraduate</td><td>Honorary fourth‐year undergraduate</td><td>Second year, Ph.D.</td></tr><tr><td>Program</td><td>Design Theory, Master</td><td>Industrial Design, Bachelor</td><td>Industrial Design, Bachelor</td><td>Interdisciplinary, Ph.D.</td></tr><tr><td>Role</td><td>Learner</td><td>Learner</td><td>Learner</td><td>Learner and team facilitator</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The seminar was organised around three main activities: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref29">1</reflink>) reading notes of scientific publications, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref30">2</reflink>) group workshops to reflect collectively and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref31">3</reflink>) a 2‐week co‐construction project seeking an innovative solution to a complex problem.</p> <p>The Ph.D. candidates were given access to the thesis and published works of the first author to get more familiar with the ZPD teamwork skills model. They were also supervised by the seminar's professor (Former Ph.D. supervisor). As proposed in the model, the five zones were monitored by the Ph.D. candidates over the length of the seminar through notetaking and observations of other students.</p> <p>Following the conclusion of the seminar, both Ph.D. candidates were asked to write a report describing the performance of each student based on the ZPD teamwork skills model. For each zone and level, descriptive comments were synthesised into two categories. The first category summarised the notes made during the observations of the seminar's activities, while the second reflected on possible ways to put the model in action to guide the training of specific skills. The synthesis of group 1's team facilitator is used in the next section.</p> <hd id="AN0169810943-15">Results</hd> <p>Based on the ZPD teamwork skills model, observations were made on the performance of each student concerning the activities that took place during the seminar. These observations were analysed with the aim to guide training.</p> <p>Table 3 shares the typical results that were observed during the workshop for each component of the model. As the data collected was considerable, we chose to synthesise these results according to 'typical' observations that were either noted as similar among participants or expected for each level.</p> <p>3 TABLE Synthesis of typical observations, ZPD teamwork skills model</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th>Observations</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Personal zone</td></tr><tr><td>Level 1, Adaptation</td><td>P2: The student shows a good understanding of his learning environment. He feels comfortable with team activities and individual tasks.</td></tr><tr><td>Level 2, Concentration</td><td>P3: The student is motivated by the learning activities and stays focused.</td></tr><tr><td>Level 3, Assertiveness</td><td>P3: The student interacts adequately with his colleagues. He can communicate ideas. She seems to be confident in the role of facilitator.</td></tr><tr><td>Project zone</td></tr><tr><td>Level 1, Process</td><td>P1: The student is consistent. He actively participates in the activities and gladly accepts challenges. The quality of his individual tasks testifies his abilities to contribute to the project.</td></tr><tr><td>Level 2, Initiative</td><td>P1: During the workshops, he takes the initiative to structure the project and ensures its realisation according to the initially agreed terms.</td></tr><tr><td>Level 3, Complexity and feasibility</td><td>P3: The student's general understanding evolves in contact with his teammates' proposals. She is comfortable formulating potential solutions to complex problems.</td></tr><tr><td>Organisational zone</td></tr><tr><td>Level 1, Organisation</td><td>P2: The student respects deadlines. He ensures that the project objectives are achieved according to the schedule.</td></tr><tr><td>Level 2, Efficiency</td><td>P1: The student implements strategies to facilitate work between teammates (e.g. workflow, charts, grids, etc.).</td></tr><tr><td>Level 3, Prioritisation</td><td>P1: The deliverables demonstrate an ease to prioritise information and project stages.</td></tr><tr><td>Learning zone</td></tr><tr><td>Level 1, Tools</td><td>P3: The student masters basic tools useful for the activity (e.g. design software, sketching, University network, emails).</td></tr><tr><td>Level 2, Skills development</td><td>P2: The student formulates new learning paths on his own based on previous knowledge and additional research.</td></tr><tr><td>Level 3, Authenticity</td><td>N/A—The data collection did not allow us to sufficiently assess this level.</td></tr><tr><td>Social zone</td></tr><tr><td>Level 1, Communication</td><td>P1: The student is attentive to other points of view. He shows interest and great flexibility in others' ideas.</td></tr><tr><td>Level 2, Express position</td><td>P1: The student knows how to formulate ideas respectfully.</td></tr><tr><td>Level 3, Build an argument</td><td>P3: The student takes a critical position regarding his ideas. She also knows how to enrich her proposals with the ideas of others.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The cases shared in Table 3 are described as 'typical' according to the available data. Still, we noted that the most complex levels tended to multiply the variety of situations—making it more difficult to identify 'typical' cases. As students progress in the stages of the ZPD teamwork skills model and their design training, they develop their expertise, complexifying the generalisation of results. We also identified <emph>atypical</emph> cases which revealed singular observations in the sense that no other participant offered similar examples. As these examples are considered non‐standard, we will not develop further on these elements, but it would be interesting to pursue this path in future research.</p> <p>Next, we identified each student's levels of autonomy in the model (see Table 4). When a level is identified as 'autonomous' it implies that the student showed confidence and performed in the level's skills. When a level is labelled as 'to develop', it means that related skills were problematic or underdeveloped.</p> <p>4 TABLE Each participant's developmental level</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th>Participant 1</th><th>Participant 2</th><th>Participant 3</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Personal zone</td></tr><tr><td>Level 1, Adaptation</td><td>Autonomous</td><td>Autonomous</td><td>Autonomous</td></tr><tr><td>Level 2, Concentration</td><td>Autonomous</td><td>Autonomous</td><td>Autonomous</td></tr><tr><td>Level 3, Assertiveness</td><td>To develop</td><td>Autonomous</td><td>Autonomous</td></tr><tr><td>Project zone</td></tr><tr><td>Level 1, Process</td><td>Autonomous</td><td>To develop</td><td>Autonomous</td></tr><tr><td>Level 2, Initiative</td><td>Autonomous</td><td>To develop</td><td>To develop</td></tr><tr><td>Level 3, Complexity and feasibility</td><td>To develop</td><td>To develop</td><td>To develop</td></tr><tr><td>Organisational zone</td></tr><tr><td>Level 1, Organisation</td><td>Autonomous</td><td>Autonomous</td><td>To develop</td></tr><tr><td>Level 2, Efficiency</td><td>Autonomous</td><td>To develop</td><td>Autonomous</td></tr><tr><td>Level 3, Prioritisation</td><td>To develop</td><td>To develop</td><td>To develop</td></tr><tr><td>Learning zone</td></tr><tr><td>Level 1, Tools</td><td>Autonomous</td><td>Autonomous</td><td>Autonomous</td></tr><tr><td>Level 2, Skills development</td><td>To develop</td><td>To develop</td><td>Autonomous</td></tr><tr><td>Level 3, Authenticity</td><td>To develop</td><td>To develop</td><td>To develop</td></tr><tr><td>Social zone</td></tr><tr><td>Level 1, Communication</td><td>Autonomous</td><td>To develop</td><td>Autonomous</td></tr><tr><td>Level 2, Express position</td><td>To develop</td><td>Autonomous</td><td>To develop</td></tr><tr><td>Level 3, Build an argument</td><td>To develop</td><td>To develop</td><td>To develop</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 4 allows the interpretation of each participant's developmental levels in the model. Figure 4 shares the developmental level of the participants as confirmed through our result interpretation. In each figure, the highest levels assessed as autonomous are linked by a dark line. As expected, in a majority of instances, the students that reached a more complex level already mastered previous levels (e.g. levels 1, 2 and 3 of the personal zone are mastered by participants 2 and 3). Still, some students were assessed as performing in more complex levels without mastering all of the previous level(s) (e.g. levels 1 and 3 of the social zone are mastered by participant 2, but not level 2). Such instances are identified in Figure 4 with dotted lines and will be explained in the discussion.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/Q0T/01aug23/jade12461-fig-0004.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jade12461-fig-0004.jpg" title="4 Participants' Developmental Levels." /> </p> <p></p> <p>The interpretation of results allows to dress a detailed portrait of potential situations that can unfold regarding teamwork skills in learning contexts. The identification of autonomous skills and skills to develop also implies opportunities to formulate teaching guidance, which we will share in the next section.</p> <hd id="AN0169810943-17">Analysis of Field Notes: Teaching Guidance and Indicators</hd> <p>Based on the results shared in the previous section, we worked on the development of a potential set of teaching guidance to facilitate teamwork skills development. The teaching guidance and indicators introduced in this section have emerged from the dialogue between the theoretical definitions of the models' characteristics and the observations made during the data collection.</p> <p>The following Table 5 sheds light on the emergence of teaching guidance from a selection of examples related to the in‐class observations and collected field notes. The first column indicates the zone and level from which were retrieved the observations (second column) and the third column indicates the related teaching guidance. For concision purposes, we share one example for each zone, but further details will be provided for all characteristics.</p> <p>5 TABLE A selection of teaching guidance based on the ZPD teamwork skills model</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th>Observation</th><th>Teaching guidance</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Personal zone</td></tr><tr><td>Level 3, Assertiveness</td><td>P1: The quality of the student's analysis is not reflected in the collaborative work, which indicates a lack of assertiveness.</td><td>Invite the student to position himself on the team's ideas and decisions.</td></tr><tr><td>Project zone</td></tr><tr><td>Level 3, Complexity and feasibility</td><td>P3: The student's general understanding evolves with the teammates' proposals. She can formulate solutions to complex problems.</td><td>Question the decisions to incite the student to bring their proposal forward.Invite participants to apply the solutions to different contexts to highlight weaknesses.</td></tr><tr><td>Organisational zone</td></tr><tr><td>Level 2, Efficiency</td><td>P2: The student finds it difficult to identify the most relevant information in theoretical content.</td><td>Through exchanges and discussions, encourage them to take a step back and reflect on the subject.</td></tr><tr><td>Learning zone</td></tr><tr><td>Level 2, Skills development</td><td>P2: The student is limited to his knowledge and his understanding of the class readings. He does not use research skills to complement new information.</td><td>Alternate formal teaching and workshops to facilitate the links between theory and practice. Propose various resources to broaden curiosity.</td></tr><tr><td>Social zone</td></tr><tr><td>Level 3, Build an argument</td><td>P1: The student does not adopt a critical perspective regarding his teammates' contributions to the project.</td><td>Develop complementary collaborative activities that encourage self‐criticism and reflectivity.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>For example, Participant 1 is selected to illustrate Level 3 in the personal zone. Observations share a lack of individual input in the collective work, indicating a potential lack of assertiveness as Participant 1 is not sharing his thoughts. In response to this situation, we use the theoretical definition and situational data to propose teaching guidance centred on the punctual affirmation of self. Ultimately, the proposed teaching guidance should support a student to develop by encouraging him/her to take position towards the advancement of the collective work.</p> <p>Throughout the process of proposing teaching guidance, the analysis of contextual observations encouraged us to create lists of indicators that support the practical implementation of the model. All indicators were cross‐validated between the individual analysis of the two authors of this paper.</p> <p>The indicators can be used to guide the development of students' skills in relation to their level of autonomy and learning context. Moreover, the indicators translate a gradation in complexity as implied by the evolution of learners across each zone. Table 6 shares the complete list of indicators.</p> <p>6 TABLE Indicators of the ZPD teamwork skills model</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th>Indicators</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Personal zone</td></tr><tr><td>Level 1, Adaptation</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Demonstrate ease to work in various learning environments.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Demonstrate ease with different forms of learning (lectures, readings, workshops, etc).</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Level 2, Concentration</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Show interest in learning activities.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Centralise efforts on the learning task.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Level 3, Assertiveness</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Initiate interactions, propose ideas, or assume animation.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Propose learning paths individually or collectively.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Refer to various external resources (documentation, researchers, professionals, etc).</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Project zone</td></tr><tr><td>Level 1, Process</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Demonstrate constant efforts and maintain active involvement during the project.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Provide quality deliverables.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Respect mandate, brief, or instructions.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Demonstrate a good understanding of course‐specific content.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Level 2, Take initiative</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Take initiatives to structure the project.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Formulate strategies to achieve objectives.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Assume an active role in the decisions.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Level 3, Complexity and feasibility</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Demonstrate abilities to master highly complex and ill‐defined problems.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Propose operational solutions for the project.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Propose strategies to achieve project objectives.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Willing to integrate suggestions from others.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Organisational zone</td></tr><tr><td>Level 1, Organisation</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Respect deadlines.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Contribute to structuring future steps and tasks.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Contribute to gathering the material useful for the activities.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Level 2, Efficiency</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Identify strategies to facilitate collaborative exchanges.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Demonstrate ease to adjust the approaches, methods or processes in use.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Level 3, Prioritisation</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Demonstrate abilities to synthesise.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Demonstrate abilities to prioritise stages or parts of the project.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Learning zone</td></tr><tr><td>Level 1, Tools</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Master basic tools specific to the learning objectives (sketch, software, communication tools, instruments, etc).</p></list-item><list-item><p>Be open to discovering complementary technical tools.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Level 2, Skills development</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Demonstrate abilities to enrich ideas with ideas from others.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Be open to discovering complementary learning tools.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Achieve a good level of quality and originality in new situations.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Refer to external resources to support skills development.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Level 3, Authenticity</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>Social zone</td></tr><tr><td>Level 1, Communication</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Participate actively and speak up regularly.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Show good listening skills.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Demonstrate openness to the ideas of others.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Be respectful when formulating ideas.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Level 2, Express position</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Show critical thinking.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Express disagreement or a contrasting view.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Communicate respectfully.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Level 3, Build an argument</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Mobilise co‐constructed knowledge (individual and collective) to build arguments or enrich ideas.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Adopt a critical vision regarding the project and possible solutions.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Refute propositions contrary to the adopted position.</p></list-item></list></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The indicators shared in Table 6 are explained as follows. The personal zone centres on the development of skills related to self‐affirmation, confidence and group interactions. The focus of level 1 confirms the ability to work according to educational standards, while the second level focuses on the capacity to sustain concentration on the learning task. The third level seeks to encourage interactions between an individual and his team or with external resources, such as experts, for the enrichment of the project.</p> <p>The second zone (the project zone) checks the progression between the integration of the learning or design process (level 1) towards the initiation of new strategies, phases or roles (level 2). The project zone ends with an emphasis on the capacity to work with complexity and uncertainty and still propose coherent ideas (level 3).</p> <p>The first level of the organisational zone focuses on task progression according to deadlines. The second level is concerned with the implementation of efficiency as part of the learning activity (e.g. strategise, favour group work, react to the situation, etc.). The final level of the organisational zone asserts the capacity to synthesise and prioritise in complex environments.</p> <p>The fourth zone is associated with the learning zone, which checks the development of skills from the integration of basic tools (level 1) to the refinement of practical and disciplinary skills (level 2). Unfortunately, indicators regarding level 3 were difficult to study.</p> <p>The last zone is the social zone, which focuses on the interactions one can have with others. First, level 1 asserts the abilities to communicate by speaking up, listen and be open and respectful of others. Second, level 2 seeks to monitor how one can express its position by being critical and expressing its perspective respectfully. Finally, level 3 concentrates on the use and valorisation of co‐constructed knowledge as part of a team. It also assesses if someone can answer or convincingly reply to different opinions.</p> <p>To complement the presentation of these indicators, we next discuss the potential practical applications of the model.</p> <hd id="AN0169810943-18">Discussion: Applications of the Model</hd> <p>This section will discuss three practical applications of the proposed ZPD teamwork skills model and its indicators. First, the adaptability of indicators highlights how the framework can be adjusted to fit various learning contexts. Second, we will develop on the impact of situated learning and the use of the model towards learning achievements. Finally, assessment for learning will be discussed in relation to the model as a tool to stimulate active learning of teamwork skills.</p> <hd id="AN0169810943-19">Adaptability of indicators</hd> <p>The indicators proposed in relation to the model are planned to be broad enough to be applied in a variety of contexts and precise enough to target specific learning goals. The model was developed by studying various workshop team projects (Tessier [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref32">22</reflink>]) and was put into use in the present study in a master's seminar based on a combination of theoretical and active practices. These two complementary applications inform the adaptability of the model to various team situations.</p> <p>As part of the present research, it was noted that the model is particularly useful to support trainers or teachers in their approaches regarding the pedagogic decisions to put in use for better team‐related learning and skills development.</p> <p>In the future, by developing and testing the indicators proposed in this article in other situations, the model will become easier to use as a tool in context. It will also be easier to adapt according to learning contexts and developmental levels. Still, although the results shared in the present paper are a step forward, more efforts need to be oriented towards the practicality and ease of use of the model to facilitate its implementation within learning environments. Potential paths to explore in the future could be oriented towards the development of a digital and interactive version of the model that could display the details of each characteristic, including the teaching guidance and indicators. Next, we discuss how individuality can be accommodated by the model.</p> <hd id="AN0169810943-20">Impact of situated learning</hd> <p>The analysis revealed that although all participants were from similar academic levels, they performed differently when assessed according to the zones of the model. As mentioned, the adaptability of the model and its indicators translate a high level of precision. It also offers the opportunity to be implemented as part of formative or summative initiatives. The results are contextual and influenced by the background and abilities of each participant. The method was proven pertinent to identify the various levels of complexity required for collaboration and the specific skills that could prevent effective teamwork.</p> <p>Uncommon situations were noticed when learners were assessed according to higher developmental levels without having achieved the previous level(s). Although we would need to study this phenomenon closer to reach a deeper understanding, we identify these situations as normal. Learning is a process: multiple cycles can translate into different developmental achievements that are refined organically—sometimes leaving underdeveloped skills behind.</p> <p>To encourage a more coherent development of collaborative skills, we propose to implement a more holistic learning sequence in training programs. This would ensure that developmental levels are integrated in order of complexity. An organised learning sequence would ensure that less complex skills are integrated before the learners are confronted to more complex situations.</p> <p>As an example, we can refer to a past study where learners were blocked in the development of their project because they were 'behind' their expected developmental level (Tessier [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref33">22</reflink>]). The teammates considered themselves as lacking creative input and were encountering major challenges to bring their project forward (struggling to propose original ideas). Therefore, although they were supposed to be at the highest developmental level (final‐year students), they were lacking significant skills in the project zone. Throughout their process, this translated into major difficulties to bring their project to an end and influenced negatively their level of motivation (Personal zone) as a countereffect of their stagnancy. Therefore, although their expected developmental stage was supposed to translate a higher level of autonomy, their weaker skills and lack of complementarity impacted their project process and output: they were supposed to be 'autonomous' in all zones, but still had important skills to develop.</p> <p>In relation to this situation, the indicators proposed in this article allow us to better understand how their tutor could have used the model and its indicators to help the students. Level 2 of the personal and project zones are respectively concerned about 'concentration' and 'initiatives'. With formative intentions, the tutor could have adapted its approach with this team to focus on indicators of the personal zone such as: inciting them to 'centralise efforts on the project', 'initiate interactions', 'propose new [creative] paths' and refer to 'various external resources'. Moreover, the project zone could have been solicited further by motivating 'initiatives', 'formulating strategies to promote project objectives', 'assuming an active role' and 'mastering ill‐defined problems'.</p> <p>This example offers a good take on the situated character of the proposed training approach. Situated learning is influenced by the contextual and situational factors of each learning circumstance (Lave & Wenger [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref34">13</reflink>]), leading to unpredictable learning outcomes. Collaborative skills are highly situated due to the multiplicity of factors of each project, team and context. Accordingly, assessment for learning—which is discussed next—is a framework to encourage situated learning by adapting training and feedback to individual or collective conditions. In that sense, the model becomes a tool for learning more than an instrument for grading, counting or measuring the quality of the skills put in action during teamwork. The identification of developmental skills in the model is constructive and does not intend to be quantifiable. The primary intention is to facilitate skills development, provide accompaniment for trainers and create opportunities for reflective thinking in parallel of team projects. Here, evaluation accuracy is not intended: the focus is directed towards the learning process and the learner's development across the different levels of each zone. The model can be valued as part of self‐assessment activities for a student to reflect on his own skills, for co‐assessment within a team to favour communication and experience sharing, or by a teacher or tutor to monitor skills and share a global picture of a team's or a student's perceived level of development.</p> <hd id="AN0169810943-21">Assessment for learning</hd> <p>As we mentioned earlier, AfL can be described by using three essential features: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref35">1</reflink>) support higher developmental levels, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref36">2</reflink>) incite learners to take action and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref37">3</reflink>) acknowledge assessment as a process. In coherence with these guidelines, the approach shared in this article tries to use the assessment of collaborative skills positively in the development of learners. As they were being observed by a facilitator, the learners were also being formatively monitored so that guidance could be suggested to reach higher developmental levels. By receiving such feedback, learners were informed of their developmental level and encouraged to improve by taking action. In that sense, the three main characteristics of AfL are fulfilled and design's active learning practices are recognised.</p> <hd id="AN0169810943-22">Conclusion</hd> <p>This paper shared our process to move from a theoretical tool to more practical implications. Our objective has been to share a potential constructive framework to support the development of teamwork‐related skills in design training programs. Although teamwork is a soft skill that is essential in today's work world, it is rarely formally structured in training programs. We, therefore, shared a step forward regarding the use of the zone of proximal development for learning teamwork skills model. Throughout the article, we progressed from theoretical bases to situational observations, and towards general indicators.</p> <p>In conclusion, more research is needed to evaluate the full potential of the model and its framework in other contexts and case studies. Additional studies would be useful to verify the application of the model in complementary contexts and to confirm its value <emph>by and for</emph> learners. Ultimately, we find it crucial that designers understand the value of teamwork to optimise cross‐disciplinary exchanges of knowledge and skills and to consolidate efforts towards more durable and adapted solutions.</p> <hd id="AN0169810943-23">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>Many thanks to my former Ph.D. supervisor Prof. Mithra Zahedi and to the participating students of the design seminar.</p> <ref id="AN0169810943-24"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref21" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B. & William, D. (2003) Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. Maisenhead : Open University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref15" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998) Assessment and classroom learning, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 7 – 74.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref20" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Black, P. & William, D. (1998) Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment, Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 80, No. 2, pp. 139 – 44.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref11" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Boud, D. (2000) Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society, Studies in Continuing Education, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 151 – 67.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref10" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Boud, D. & Falchikov, N. (2007) Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the longer term. London : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref12" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Boud, D. & Soler, R. (2016) Sustainable assessment revisited, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 41, pp. 400 – 13.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref24" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Broadfoot, P., Daugherty, R., Gardner, J., Harlen, W., James, M. & Stobart, G. (2002) Assessment for learning: 10 principles. Cambridge : University of Cambridge School of Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref9" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Gibbs, G. (1999) Using assessment strategically to change the way students learn, in S. Brown & A. Glasner [Eds] From Assessment Matters in Higher Education. Philadelphia : Open University Press, pp. 41 – 53.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref17" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Gipps, C. (2002) Sociocultural Perspectives on Assessment, in G. Wells & G. Claxton [Eds] Learning for Life in the 21st Century: Sociocultural Perspectives on the Future of Education. Cronwall : Blackwell Publishers, pp. 73 – 83.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hattie, J. & Timperley, H. (2007) The Power of Feedback, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 77, No. 1, pp. 81 – 112.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Helle, L., Tynjälä, P. & Olkinuora, E. (2006) Project‐based learning in post‐secondary education: Theory, practice and rubber sling shots, Higher Education, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp. 287 – 314.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kvale, S. (2007) Contradictions of assessment for learning in institutions of higher learning, in D. Boud & N. Falchikov [Eds] Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education. London : Routledge, pp. 57 – 71.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McDonnell, J. (2015) Gifts to the future: Design reasoning, design research and critical design practitioners, The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 107 – 17.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Newman, T. (2020) Collaboration is uncomfortable, International Journal of Art & Design Education, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 788 – 94.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Noël, G. (2020) We all want high‐quality design education: But what might that mean? She Ji The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 5 – 12.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sainsbury, E. J. & Walker, R. A. (2008) Assessment as a vehicle for learning: Extending collaboration into testing, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 103 – 7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scriven, M. (1967) The methodology of evaluation, in T. R. Gagne & M. Scriven [Eds] Perspectives on Curriculum Evaluation. Chicago : Rand McNally and Co.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taras, M. (2010) Assessment for learning: Assessing the theory and evidence, Procedia ‐ Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 3015 – 22.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tessier, V. & Zahedi, M. (2019) Assessment of collaborative design: A sociocultural approach, in Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (E&PDE 2019). Glasgow : The Design Society.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tessier, V. (2021a) A model for learning teamwork skills, in Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (E&PDE 2021). Herning : The Design Society.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tessier, V. (2021b) Étude exploratoire sur le travail en équipe d'étudiants dans l'atelier de design: vers un modèle d'évaluation pour l'apprentissage basé sur la théorie de l'activité et l'apprentissage expansif (Ph.D.). Montreal: University of Montreal.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tessier, V. (2021c) Integrated studio approach to motivate collaboration in design projects, Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 213 – 29.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in Society. Cambridge : Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wiliam, D. (2011) What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 3 – 14.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Virginie Tessier and Mathilde Carbonneau‐Loiselle</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Virginie Tessier is an assistant professor at the University of Montreal's School of Design. Her research is interested in design education, project‐based learning and design process. She also conducts studies regarding collaboration, teamwork and their integration in the training of designers. Her Ph.D. thesis explored how design students live and grow out of their everyday teamwork challenges as part of their workshop projects. Through the analysis of their challenges, she created a model and a framework supporting teamwork‐related training towards optimal collaboration. As part of the CollaborationLab, her research has also been interested in Activity Theory to enhance design research. She now acts as an expert to guide research teams to understand and test the theory in other disciplines. virginie.tessier@umontreal.ca</p> <p>Mathilde Carbonneau‐Loiselle —Graduate of the master's degree in urban planning from the University of Montreal, Mathilde Carbonneau‐Loiselle is pursuing an interdisciplinary doctorate in environmental design in joint supervision between the Faculty of Environmental Design of University of Montreal and the CRESSON laboratory at l'École Nationale Supérieure d'Architecture de Grenoble—Université de Grenoble‐Alpes. Her research interests focus on the transformation of built environments from a perspective of adaptability to changes: climate, demographic, health, etc. As part of her thesis, art‐based methods prove to be an effective means of engaging the inhabitants in a transformative process. Her thesis focuses on the experience of walking in suburban areas with concerns on reconfiguring mobility habits and ways of inhabiting the territories.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref34"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1387546
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Assessment for Learning of Design Teamwork Skills
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tessier%2C+Virginie%22">Tessier, Virginie</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9243-365X">0000-0002-9243-365X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Carbonneau-Loiselle%2C+Mathilde%22">Carbonneau-Loiselle, Mathilde</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22International+Journal+of+Art+%26+Design+Education%22"><i>International Journal of Art & Design Education</i></searchLink>. Aug 2023 42(3):420-438.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 19
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Design%22">Design</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teamwork%22">Teamwork</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cooperative+Learning%22">Cooperative Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Implementation%22">Program Implementation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Models%22">Models</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Skill+Development%22">Skill Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Assessment%22">Educational Assessment</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/jade.12461
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1476-8062
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This article seeks to contribute to the reflection around the training of future designers regarding teamwork. Collaboration, teamwork and negotiations are common everyday interactions that are now known to contribute positively to the design process. This article builds on a theoretical model that was initially proposed as a Ph.D. thesis contribution: the zone of proximal development for learning teamwork skills. The objective of this article is to share the first implementation of the model in a real educational situation and seize this opportunity to develop it further. The framework of assessment for learning and the concept of the zone of proximal development guide this research. The data collection is based on the observations of teamwork during a design seminar. The analysis is structured around the theoretical definitions of the model's components and in situ observations of the participants. This process guides us to share indicators allowing to confirm if a level or set of skills are achieved by a student. Plus, we propose a set of related teaching guidance to use when skills are identified as underdeveloped or to develop. Through this work, we wish to discuss how design students can be better equipped to enter the profession and play a significant role as team players.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1387546
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1387546
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/jade.12461
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 19
        StartPage: 420
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Design
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teamwork
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cooperative Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Implementation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Models
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Skill Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Assessment
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Assessment for Learning of Design Teamwork Skills
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tessier, Virginie
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Carbonneau-Loiselle, Mathilde
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 08
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1476-8062
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 42
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: International Journal of Art & Design Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1