Title: The development of a rubric for peer assessment of individual teamwork skills in

undergraduate midwifery students

Carolyn Hastie 1 , Kathleen Fahy2, Jenny Parratt3

Background: Poor teamwork is cited as one of the major root causes of adverse events in

healthcare. Bullying, resulting in illness for staff, is an expression of poor teamwork skills.

Despite this knowledge, poor teamwork persists in healthcare and teamwork skills are rarely

the focus of teaching and assessment in undergraduate health courses.

 Aim: To develop and implement an assessment tool for use in facilitating midwifery

students’ learning of teamwork skills.

 Methods: This paper describes how the TeamUP rubric tool was developed. No research

reports on how to teach and assess health students’ teamwork skills in standing teams were

found. The literature, however, gives guidance about how university educators should

evaluate individual students using peer assessment. The developmental processes of the

rubric were grounded in the theoretical literature and feminist collaborative conversations.

The rubric incorporates five domains of teamwork skills: Fostering a Team Climate; Project

Planning; Facilitating Teams; Managing Conflict and Quality Individual Contribution. The

process and outcomes of student and academic content validation are described.

Conclusion: The TeamUP rubric is useful for articulating, teaching and assessing teamwork

skills for health professional students. . The TeamUP rubric is a robust, theoretically

grounded model that defines and details effective teamwork skills and related behaviours. If

these skills are mastered, we predict that graduates will be more effective in teams. Our

assumption is that graduates, empowered by having these skills, are more likely to manage

conflict effectively and less likely to engage in bullying behaviours.

1

Keywords: teamwork; teamwork skills; collaboration; midwifery students; assessment; peer-

assessment; graduate attributes; social and emotional intelligence; maternity services; safety

2

Introduction

This paper reports on the process of development, implementation and initial evaluation of

the teamwork skills assessment tool: the TeamUP Rubric. See table 1 for definition of key

terms. Teamwork skills are based on the assumption that health professionals should relate

respectfully to each other as peers instead of a model of domination and submission (1). The

development of the rubric is nested within a larger action research study that is concerned

with the processes of teaching and assessing teamwork skills in undergraduate health

courses. There are many examples of tools to use to teach teamwork with emergency ‘drill

teams’ (2, 3). In contrast, the focus of TeamUP is on ‘standing teams’’(4). A search of the

literature showed that there are no research reports on how to teach and assess health

students’ in standing teams.

INSERT TABLE ONE HERE

Poor teamwork is expensive; in both human and financial terms. Research and government

enquiries consistently identify poor teamwork as one of the top modifiable causes of adverse

health outcomes and avoidable suffering; not just for patients, but also for staff (5-10). Many

of these adverse events result in death; in maternity care that most often means avoidable

baby deaths (11-15). Bullying, a major contributor to adverse health outcomes for workers, is

an expression of poor teamwork skills (16-21) and a major cause of high staff turnover and

absenteeism (6, 17).

The National Competency Standards for the Midwife (22) the Code of Professional Conduct

for Midwives (23) and the Code of Ethics for Midwives (24) refer to the midwife’s duty to

collaborate with colleagues in respectful ways. A review (25) found no examples of any

Australian university who assures that their Bachelor’s degree graduates meet the Australian

Quality Framework (26) requirement to be able to communicate and collaborate: that is,

teamwork skills.

3

Our first attempt to assess individual student teamwork skills involved students working

together on a team project and then giving anonymised (that is, not anonymous to the

lecturer) peer feedback. In this first attempt, students used a set of criteria (without

definitions) to provide numerical marks and comments to each other. We did not provide

any education about what constituted teamwork skills neither did we provide information on

how to give and receive such feedback. Although the students’ evaluations of this peer

making process were primarily positive, they did say that they wanted “more guidance, more

specific teaching about teamwork, more teacher involvement, mid-session peer feedback”

and “an improved ability to meet face to face” in their teams (27). Based on this feedback,

we decided that a systematic, whole of curriculum approach was needed – this decision led

directly to the action research study and the development of the TeamUP rubric.

Review of Related Literature

As discussed above, there are no published individual teamwork assessment tools for

‘standing teams’ in the field of health. Broadening the focus to include any university

discipline, only one teamwork assessment tool for use with students was found: the

Comprehensive Assessment of Team Member Effectiveness (CATME) (see

http://www.catme.org). The CATME tool has been widely adopted for use in Universities.

CATME was developed from 180 items extracted from a literature search and tested on

university students to identify what students thought were critical team-member behaviours

(28). In its most recent form, CATME is a five-item tool which is centrally administered from

the CATME website.

Following our own review of the literature and our analysis of the CATME tool, we had a

Skype meeting with Matthew Ohland, one of the chief authors of CATME to discuss how the

CATME tool could be refined to suit our purposes. We eventually decided not to use the

CATME tool because of the limitations we found that include;

4

1. The assessment process is all under the control of the CATME team in the USA

allowing no opportunity for change or the addition of qualitative feedback,

2. The CATME items are ill-defined which reduces their usefulness in helping students

to know exactly what is required and,

3. The lack of definition undermines validity of the students’ ratings because different

words mean different things to different raters (29).

The Association of American Colleges and Universities (AACU) (30) developed a generic

rubric for use at the institutional level (available from

http://www.aacu.org/value/rubrics/pdf/teamwork.pdf). The AACU rubric, like the CATME tool,

did not have the detail required to be useful as a guide to students and teachers about what

teamwork skills actually are.

Hugh and Jones (31), in their critical review of the teamwork teaching and assessment

literature, highlighted the paucity of existing tools for use by university educators and made

the following recommendations:

1) Modify the AACU teamwork rubric  and use the rubric to give students formative and

summative feedback from their peers within subjects.

2) Commit to the Development of Teamwork ; this means teaching students how to be

effective teammates and giving them opportunities to practise and get feedback on

their developing teamwork skills.

3) Design Assignments that Elicit Teamwork

4) Focus on the Teamwork Process ; not just the end product

5) Provide Meaningful Feedback  by giving students the opportunity to practise, receive

feedback, and then try again before any marks are assigned to teamwork skills.

We have integrated these recommendations into the development of the TeamUP rubric

as discussed below.

5

Educational Theory Informing the TeamUP Rubric

An assumption guiding the development of the TeamUP rubric is that teamwork skills and

associated behaviours can be taught, practised and assessed. This methodology is in

contrast to a ‘personality’ or ‘strengths’ approach to teamwork based on traits like

‘openness’, ‘kindness’ or strengths like ‘completer/finisher’ (32, 33). These types of models

assume that people’s current way of behaving in teams defines how they will be in future

teams, which we, as educators, reject. In this section we outline the educational theoretical

foundations of the rubric.

We used a situated learning perspective to guide educational decisions. Situated learning is

based on the belief that knowledge and skill development are contextually situated and

vitally influenced by the activities and culture in which it is used (34-37). Relevant key

attributes of situated learning integrated into this project are:

1) Encouragement of student reflection on experience;

2) Scaffolding, including apprenticeship and coaching (38) e.g. the development and

refinement of a detailed rubric and self-paced lessons;

3) Interactivity, which means designing learning activities where students and

academics are interactive with others;

4) The engagement of multiple senses and emotions to enhance the learning

process; and,

5) Multiple opportunities for practice over time, particularly for practical and complex

skills (39).

Aspects of behaviourist theory were also relevant to guiding the development of the

TeamUP rubric. Behaviourist theory underpinned the provision of clear behavioural

descriptors and outcome measures, together with the use of assessment feedback to

6

reinforce or extinguish certain behaviours; all of which are valuable educational practices

(39).

Assessment in higher education has been mainly focused on the grades achieved by

students; not how they communicate and collaborate with others. David Boud (2010) a

highly respected expert in adult education argues for assessment tasks that are centered on

meaningful, long-term learning, not simply used to make judgments about grades (40).

Leading educationalists accuse academics of holding onto old models of teaching and

assessment that focus on short term and relatively superficial knowledge, understanding and

technical skills (41-43). For health care undergraduate students, this means (in part) that

insufficient attention is currently given to teaching and assessing teamwork skills. The lack of

attention to these crucial aspects of professional practice may be because teamwork is

considered difficult to assess, partly because it is ill defined.

This lack of assessment of individual teamwork skills is in spite of the fact that many health

curricula include large amounts of teamwork for students: the most well-known method being

team-based learning (TBL) (42). Student involvement in TBL does not specifically involve

teaching or assessing individual teamwork skills. The key goal of TBL is to facilitate learning

of course content through teamwork activities instead of traditional lectures and tutorials. We

rejected a TBL approach because we wanted to implement team-based assessments in

addition to lectures and tutorials. Our goal was for students to learn pre-specified teamwork

skills, which would be self and peer-assessed, along with content. When students work on

team assignments, we generally assign a weighting of 50% for the team’s assignment (all

students get the same mark) and 50% for individual teamwork skills (students get different

marks).

7

Methods used to develop the TeamUP Rubric

We transformed the AACU rubric into the TeamUP rubric by: 1) defining each of the domains

and clarifying the related teamwork skills, 2) writing the skills in positive behavioural terms,

and 3) considering our own knowledge and experiences as these related to what we

considered to be key teamwork skills. We used two methods during this development phase:

Feminist Collaborative Conversations and Content Validation via pilot testing. These

methods are explained below.

Feminist Collaborative Conversations

Feminism is defined as “the theory, research and practice of identifying, understanding and

changing the intrapersonal and social factors that sustain women’s disempowerment” (44).

In this case we wanted to ensure a framework within which midwifery students would learn

teamwork skills and so free themselves from the inhibitions that come with habitual and

gendered ways of relating. Habitual and gendered behaviours that we were keen to change

include those associated with the victim-persecutor-rescuer dynamic of bullying (45) and the

‘doctor-nurse game’ (46, 47). Feminist collaborative conversations work particularly well as

methodology for action research studies where the conversations go beyond ‘chatting’ to

become an intensive site for practice transformation (48, 49). This model guided us in

critically discussing teamwork skills as they might relate to the TeamUP rubric. In these

conversations, we valued our own and each other’s’ lived experiences of working in and

leading teams; both at work and in the community. These experiences included clinical and

educational leadership in the health and higher education bureaucracies. Community-based

experiences involved leading and participating in women’s meditation and spirituality groups;

participating in the management of women’s services including setting up and managing a

domestic violence service. We challenged ourselves, and each other, to draw learning from

our experiences; valuing similarities and differences. We also critically discussed the

theoretical and philosophical basis for our beliefs about what teamwork skills are important

8

and how they should be worded and justified (48, 49). We made explicit the assumptions

underpinning our decisions e.g. that as health professionals, midwifery students need to

know and are guided by the relevant Codes of Conduct and Ethics; that as university

students, they are subject to the Codes of Conduct of the university; including no bullying;

that all health students learn basic communication and counselling skills (so these do not

have to be repeated) and; that midwifery students learn, and regularly practice reflection to

learn from experience (50).

The outcome of these feminist collaborative conversations was the decision to keep, and

slightly modify the five teamwork domains of the AACU rubric. Also arising from these

conversations was the definition of ‘teamwork skills’ as shown in Table 1. We debated and

consensually decided upon the initial definitions of each of the teamwork domains and the

behavioural descriptors. Decisions about the theoretical foundations arose from critical

conversations between all authors. The process of this decision-making included a review of

the literature; mainly the grey literature (in particular: (51-56). Our aim was to ground each

definition and teamwork skill description in the extant theoretical literature whilst ensuring

that it also resonated with our own lived teamwork experiences.

Content validation of the TeamUP rubric

Once the initial draft of the TeamUP rubric was complete, we engaged in a process of pilot

testing. To improve the content validity of the rubric prior to implementation, we conducted

one focus group with midwifery students (n=8) and another with health and business

academics (n=14) experienced in teamwork assessments. The academics were members of

the larger, multidisciplinary, action research team. Both groups used a paper version of the

rubric to anonymously assess their own and each other’s performance during the focus

group process. The midwifery students’ focus group also undertook a practice of self and

peer assessment using an online version of survey tool. The outputs from both paper and

9

online versions of the assessment process were not shared with their peers, although the

experience and learning was explored within each group.

The midwifery students provided feedback on the rubric content and were unanimous in their

recommendation that the TeamUP rubric, and associated self and peer assessment, should

be used. Students also suggested that peer feedback should be provided in an online; rather

than paper format.

The action research team subsequently met and spent approximately two hours critiquing

the revised rubric. During this time one of the authors took notes. We considered the

feedback from the students and our colleagues and made a number of changes to

descriptors and a small amount of refinement to the definitions to produce the rubric

presented in this paper. Students now complete the TeamUP rubric online using THE

Qualtrics survey tool.

The TeamUP rubric: domains, definitions and behavioural descriptors

The TeamUP rubric has five domains of teamwork skills each of which has a list of

behavioural descriptors (See table 2 for an example of one domain; see the supplementary

material for the complete rubric).

INSERT TABLE 2

Listed below are definitions for each of the five domains of teamwork skills, along with their

respective theoretical foundations and behavioural descriptors. The domain definitions and

behavioural descriptors are crucially important because they overcome a chief obstacle to

teaching and assessing teamwork skills; lack of clarity about exactly what is meant by

teamwork skills.

10

1. Project Planning and Management

Project Planning and Management is defined as “The planning skills that enable team

members to work in synergy to produce a project plan of the best possible quality”.

Development of the domain was guided by the literature on project management, particularly

Gido and Clements (54); we adapted this literature to suit team-based assignments. The

behavioural descriptors are:

a. initiating communication to aid team coordination

b. responding appropriately to communication

c. participating in meetings

d. taking minutes or chairing meetings

e. clarifying/defining group aim/s

f. planning the project e.g. Gantt chart, meeting schedules, role allocations

g. Using arguments and evidence in problem solving and decision/making

2. Fostering a Team Climate

Fostering a Team Climate is defined as “The emotional and social skills to foster a sense

of trust and inclusiveness for each team member”. Dan Goleman’s Social and Emotional

Intelligence and Communication Theory (55, 56) guided the domain’s development. The

behavioural descriptors are:

a. Behaving politely

b. Engaging appropriately in small talk

c. Establishing/supporting clear boundaries and expectations of behaviour

d. Treating team members respectfully

e. Ensuring consistency between words, tone, facial expression and body language

f. Expressing positivity and optimism about the team and the project

g. Following up with others when there is concern about their feelings or

contribution

11

h. Speaking positively about team members

3. Facilitating the Contributions of Others

We drew from the work of Bob Dick (52) to define Facilitating the Contributions of Others

as “The skills to ensure that the processes of team interaction are effective in

progressing the project plan; this means that accurate, relevant information is

exchanged, understood and used by all team members”. Our development of the domain

was largely informed from Feminist Group Process as described by Peggy Chinn in

Peace and Power (51). The behavioural descriptors are:

a. Communicating actively and constructively

b. Listening attentively to others without interrupting

c. Encouraging that all perspectives be considered

d. Acknowledging the contributions of others

e. Constructively building upon the contributions of another

f. Synthesizing the contributions of others

g. Noticing when someone is not participating and involving them

4. Managing Conflict

Managing Conflict is defined as “The personal and interpersonal skills to prevent,

recognise, and address conflict in ways that strengthen overall team cohesiveness &

effectiveness”. This domain was largely informed from Baden Eunson’s chapter on

Conflict Management (53). The behavioural descriptors are:

a. Being appropriately assertive: neither dominating, submissive, nor passive

aggressive

b. Minimising unnecessary conflict by addressing the legitimate needs of other team

members

12

c. Asking team members to honour agreed expectations of behaviour

d. Contributing appropriately to healthy debate

e. Recognising and responding to supressed or indirect conflict

f. Managing conflict in ways that strengthens overall team cohesiveness &

effectiveness

g. Addressing destructive conflict directly and constructively

5. Contributing to Team Project

Contributing to Team Project is defined as “The skills required to make a high-quality,

individual contribution to the team project”. In developing the domain, we were guided by

academic standards and expectations of student behaviour. We were also informed by

project management theory (54) and feminist group practice (51). The behavioural

descriptors are:

a. Accepting a fair share of the group work

b. Working skilfully on assigned tasks

c. Using technologies effectively

d. Reporting to team on progress

e. Completing all assigned tasks on time according to project plan

f. Integrating own work with the work of others

g. Giving timely, constructive feedback to each team member in the appropriate

format

h. Adhering to academic standards

Peer Feedback and Marking Using the TeamUP rubric

Students do not give each other marks; instead they provide feedback to each other, which

the academic uses to guide final decisions about individual marks for teamwork skills. Peer

feedback involves students giving each other traffic light colour signals based on four colours

(Red, Amber, Yellow and Green) (see example Table 2). The aim of using colour, instead of

13

marks, is to encourage students to focus on giving feedback with integrity and reducing the

emphasis on marks as the focus of attention (40, 43).

Space for written feedback is included on the rubric for each domain. Students provide a

justifying comment for their colour choices in each domain. The comments are usually a

better indicator of the student’s true perception of the other’s behaviour. The academic who

moderates the assessment receives a version of the peer feedback with names included.

The academic moderator assigns a single mark to each student. We considered and

rejected the notion of pass/fail in favour of marks for two main reasons. Firstly, marks

function like a currency which motivates students to strive for high individual marks by

following assignment and teamwork guidelines. Secondly, students perform at different

levels of skill and commitment to teamwork and these differences should be fairly

acknowledged with an individual mark. To assign the mark the academic takes into account

the colour signals and related student comments. After academic moderation, the peer-

assessed student receives individual, confidential, combined and anonymised feedback: this

step is crucial for students to feel safe enough to be honest with their feedback. Academic

moderation is essential to minimise the risk the feedback causes unnecessary suffering or is

bullying in nature. If challenged on appeal, academics can justify their scores by providing

the qualitative and quantitative data from peer feedback as evidence of a student’s capability

as a team member.

Discussion

Following both formal feedback via a survey (27) and informal feedback, during

conversations about their teamwork experiences with students, we realised that students

needed to be taught the skills that are articulated on the rubric. Those lessons (a lecture and

related tutorial) are now provided on the first four domains (the exception being “Contributing

to Team Project”). In addition we added a lesson and tutorial on a sub-skill of managing

conflict ‘Giving and Receiving Feedback’. The Bachelor of Midwifery has an underpinning

14

framework of engaging the students regularly in “Reflection to Learn from Experience” which

is crucial for them to learn from their teamwork experiences and peer-feedback. Beginning in

2013, TeamUP as an educational package, has been included in every year of the midwifery

program, thus ensuring students have the extended time required to develop this complex

skill set by the time they graduate.

Limitations of the rubric have most to do with the limitations of peer feedback, which is not

unique to the TeamUP rubric. Specifically, students may be fearful that their honest

assessment of a non-performing student team member will lead to the team member’s

failure in that assignment; students do not want to feel responsible for a peer’s failure (57).

Also, the student providing feedback may fear that the student who has been criticized may

‘work out’ who gave the lower colour rating and therefore be subjected to some form of ‘pay

back’. In order to ameliorate this possibility, we recommend that teams should comprise

seven or more members to both minimise this risk and to maximise the students’ courage to

give feedback with integrity. We highlight the importance of the academic’s role in

moderating and providing each student with combined feedback only; not the individual

colours and comments from their peers. Another concern is that most students have no

training or experience in giving and receiving feedback; students may have difficulty with

receiving corrective feedback even when it is given with respect and good intentions. We

have responded to this concern by introducing a lesson this year (2014) on the topic of

giving and receiving feedback.

We recommend that academics use the rubric formatively and summatively. At the formative

assessment point, which should be 3-4 weeks before summative assessment, no marks are

given; just colour signals and comments. At this formative assessment point, problems can

be identified and corrective action taken by students and sometimes, by the academic. In our

experience, managing teamwork assignments involving peer feedback is relatively easy. As

long as there are clear guidelines for students, problems are rare.

15

Research of the TeamUP educational program is continuing. Current projects involve

evaluating, refining and validating the rubric; evaluating students’ experiences of teamwork

assignments and the impact that TeamUP is having on individual student’s interactions in

the health care system and in their private lives. Lessons designed to teach teamwork skills

will also be evaluated by students.

Conclusion

This paper has described the process of the development of the TeamUP rubric. The

TeamUP rubric is a robust, theoretically-grounded model that defines and details effective

teamwork skills and associated behaviours. If these skills are mastered, we predict that

graduates will be more effective in teams. Our assumption is that graduates, empowered by

having these skills, are more likely to manage conflict effectively and less likely to engage in

bullying behaviours. Further work needs to be done on validating the rubric, evaluating the

experiences of students and teachers who are experiencing the TeamUP educational

enhancement and investigating ways to make the peer-review process even more reliable.

16

Table 1: Definitions of Key Terms

Assessment

Educational assessment practices serve three main purposes; to

promote student learning, to certify achievement and for quality

assurance (43).

Assessment:

Formative

“is forward looking seeking to shape or ‘form’ the students learning by

setting them on the right learning path; it is more conversational in

nature seeking “to engage the student in identifying ways in which

performance can be improved” and then acting on that enhanced

understanding” p.12 (43)

Assessment:

Summative

Summative assessment is a retrospective summation of the student’s

achievement which results in grades and certifications (58); it must be

technically rigorous and have demonstrable validity and reliability(43).

Behaviour

Behaviour is the internally coordinated responses (both actions and

inactions) of the whole organism to internal and/or external stimuli;

excluding responses more easily understood as developmental change

(59).

Learning

Learning is the process of changing behaviour as a result of

experience. Consistent with constructivist learning theory, when

students are facilitated to engage in teamwork assignments, individual

learning occurs in communities of practice; with the aim of enhancing

socialisation for all team members (60).

SkillThe ability to do something well. A skill requires knowledge, attitude and

practice; skills develop over time (61)

Teams

1. Drill teams

1. In drill teams membership changes, the duration of the team is

relatively short and the roles are usually clearly defined so that

17

2. Standing teams

interactions are mostly limited to role functioning (e.g.

emergency teams, surgical teams) (4).

2. In ‘standing teams’ there is an expectation of ongoing

relationships because membership is relatively stable and

persist over time; interactions often exceed role functions (4).

Teamwork skills

A group of learned behaviours that provide the individual with the

capability to maintain their own integrity whilst fostering the

achievement of team goals.

Rubric

A scoring tool that divides an assignment into its component parts and

objectives, and provides a detailed description of what constitutes

acceptable and unacceptable levels of performance for each part (62).

Workplace Bullying

“is repeated, unreasonable behaviour directed towards an employee or

group of employees that creates a risk to health and safety…and

includes actions of individuals or a group … including verbal abuse,

excluding or isolating employees, and psychological harassment –

intimidation, assigning meaningless tasks unrelated to the job and

deliberately withholding information” (21).

Validity

“Validity is the overall evaluative judgement of the degree to which

empirical evidence and theoretical rationales support the adequacy and

appropriateness of interpretations and actions on the basis of test

scores or other modes of assessment” (29)A .

18

Table 2 Example of a Domain from the TeamUP rubric

Managing Conflict: “The personal and interpersonal skills to prevent, recognise, and address conflict in ways that strengthen overall team cohesiveness & effectiveness”

Please indicate the extent to which this student demonstrates each behaviour Green Yellow Amber Red

being appropriately assertive: neither dominating, submissive, nor passive aggressive

minimising unnecessary conflict by addressing the legitimate needs of other team members

asking team members to honour agreed expectations of behaviour

contributing appropriately to healthy debate recognising and responding to suppressed or

indirect conflict managing conflict in ways that strengthens overall

team cohesiveness & effectiveness addressing destructive conflict directly and

constructively

Overall Rating for Managing Conflict

19

References

1. Eisler R. The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our future. San Francisco: Harper; 1987.2. Birch L, Jones N, Doyle PM, Green P, McLaughlin A, Champney C, et al. Obstetric skills drills: evaluation of teaching methods. Nurse Education Today. 2007;27(8):915-22. PubMed PMID: 2009720657. Language: English. Entry Date: 20080125. Revision Date: 20091218. Publication Type: journal article.3. Valentine M, Nembhard I, Edmondson A. Measuring Teamwork in Health Care Settings: A Review of Survey Instruments. Medical Care. 2014;0(0):1-15.4. Alge BJ, Wiethoff C, Klein HJ. When does the medium matter? Knowledge-building experiences and opportunities in decision-making teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2003 5//;91(1):26-37.5. Ma-L V. Consequences of workplace bullying with respect to the well-being of its targets and the observers of bullying. Scandanavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health. 2001;27(1):63-9.6. Asfaw AG, Chang CC, Ray TK. Workplace mistreatment and sickness absenteeism from work: Results from the 2010 National Health Interview survey. American Journal of Industrial Medicine. 2014;57(2):202-13.7. Kivimäki M, Elovainio M, Vahtera J. Workplace bullying and sickness absence in hospital staff. Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2000;57(10):656-60.8. Quine L. Workplace bullying in nurses. Journal of Health Psychology. 2001;6(1):73-84.9. Longo J. Combating Disruptive Behaviors: Strategies to Promote a Healthy Work Environment. The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing 2010;15(1).10. Reynolds G, Kelly S, Singh-Carlson S. Horizontal hostility and verbal violence between nurses in the perinatal arena of health care. Nursing Management - UK. 2014;20(9):24-30. PubMed PMID: 2012451934. Language: English. Entry Date: 20140214. Revision Date: 20140214. Publication Type: journal article.11. Garling P. Final Report of the Special Commission of Inquiry: Acute Care Services in NSW Public Hospitals. Sydney, NSW: 2008. In: Inquiry SoNttSCo, editor. Sydney: NSW Government; 2008.12. Department of Health and Ageing, editor. Improving Maternity Services in Australia: The Report of the Maternity Services Review. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2009.13. Centre for Maternal and Child Enquiries. Saving Mothers’ Lives: Reviewing maternal deaths to make motherhood safer: 2006–2008. The Eighth Report on Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths in the United Kingdom. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 2011;118(Suppl.1):1-203.14. Centre for Maternal and Child Enquiries C. Perinatal Mortality 2009: United Kingdom. London: CMACE, 2011.15. Douglas N, Fahy K, Robinson J. Final Report of the Inquiry into Obstetric and Gynaecological Services at King Edward Memorial Hospital 1990-2000” (Five volumes). Western Australian Government Inquiry into Obstetric and Gynaecological Services at King Edward Memorial Hospital Western Australia State Law Publishing; 2001.16. Hooper LM, L'Abate L, Sweeney LG, Gianesini G, Jankowski P. Models of Psychopathology: Generational Processes and Relational Roles. New York: Springer; 2014.17. Hansen ÅM, Hogh A, Persson R. Frequency of bullying at work, physiological response, and mental health. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 2011 1//;70(1):19-27.

20

18. MacDougall J, Adams T, Morris C. Undermining in obstetrics and gynaecology. Obstetrics, Gynaecology & Reproductive Medicine. 2013 6//;23(6):189-91.19. Lundstrom T, Pugliese G, Bartley J, Cox J, Guither C. Organizational and environmental factors that affect worker health and safety and patient outcomes. American Journal of Infection Control. 2002 4//;30(2):93-106.20. Hastie C. Midwives eat their young, don’t they? Birth Issues. 1995;4(3):4-9.21. Department of Human Services. Preventing Occupational Violence in Victorian Health Services - A Policy Framework and Resource Kit. In: DHS, editor. Victoria: DHS; 2007.22. Australian Nursing and Midwifery Council. National Competency Standards for the Midwife. Canberra: ANMC. Available from http://www.nursingmidwiferyboard.gov.au/Codes-and-Guidelines.aspx; 2006.23. Australian Nursing and Midwifery Council. Code of Professional Conduct for Midwives in Australia. Canberra: ANMC. Available from http://www.nursingmidwiferyboard.gov.au/Codes-and-Guidelines.aspx 2008.24. Council ANaM. Code of Ethics for Nurses in Australia. Canberra2002.25. Oliver B. Assuring graduate outcomes. . Strawberry Hills, NSW.: Australian Learning and Teaching Council; 2011.26. Australian Qualifications Framework Council. Australian Qualifications Framework In: Australian Qualifications Framework Council, editor. Second Edition ed. Online: National Library of Australia; 2013.27. Parratt J, Fahy K, Hastie C. Midwifery Students’ Evaluation Of Team-Based Academic Assignments Involving Peer-Marking. Women and Birth. 2013;in press.28. Loughry ML, Ohland MW, DeWayne Moore D. Development of a Theory-Based Assessment of Team Member Effectiveness. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2007;67(3):505-24.29. Messick S. Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons' responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist. 1995;50(9):741-9. PubMed PMID: 1996-10004-001. PsycARTICLES Identifier: amp-50-9-741. First Author & Affiliation: Messick, Samuel.30. Rhodes TL. Assessing Outcomes and Improving Achievement: Tips and Tools for Using Rubrics. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities.; 2010.31. Hughes RL, Jones SK. Developing and Assessing College Student Teamwork Skills. 2011. In: New Directions for Institutional Research [Internet]. Wiley Online Library Wiley Periodicals, Inc. ; [53-64].32. Kinlaw DC. Developing superior work teams: Building quality and the competitive edge. San Diego: Lexington Books; 1991.33. Belbin M. Management teams: Why they succeed or fail. Burlington, MA: Elsevier; 2010.34. Schank R. Tell me a story: Anew look at artificial and real memory. New York, NY: Scribners; 1990.35. McLellan H. Situated learning perspectives. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications; 1996.36. Lave J, Wenger E. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation: Cambridge University Press; 1991.37. Brown JS, Collins A, Duguid P. Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher. 1989;18(1):32-42.38. Collins A, Brown KS, Newman S. Congitive Apprenticeship: Teaching the Crafts of Reading, Writing and Mathmatic. In: Resnick L, editor. Knowing, Learning and Instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser. Mahwah, N. J.: Erlbaum; 1989.

21

39. Svinicki MD. New Directions in Learning and Motivation. New Directions for Teaching and Learning. 1999;1999(80):5-27.40. Boud D. Assessment 2020: Seven propositions for assessment reform in higher education. Sydney: Australian Learning and Teaching Council. Retrieved from http://www.olt.gov.au/resource-student-assessment-learning-and-after-courses-uts-2010; 2010.41. Barrie S, Hughes C, Smith C. The National Graduate Attributes Project: Integration and Assessment of Graduate Attributes in Curriculum. Sydney: The University of Sydney. Retrieved from http://www.olt.gov.au/project-integration-assessment-graduate-sydney-2007; 2009.42. Michaelsen LK, Sweet M, Parmelee DX, editors. Team-based learning: Small group learning's next big step. . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2008.43. Yorke M. Grading student achievement in higher education: signals and shortcomings. Milton Park, UK: Routledge; 2007.44. Harrison K, Fahy K. Feminist and Postmodern Approaches to Qualitative Research. In: Tenenbaum G, Driscoll M, editors. Research Methods in the Sports Sciences: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. Aachen, Germany: Meyer and Meyer Sport; 2005.45. Burgess RC. A Model for Enhancing Individual and Organisational Learning of 'Emotional Intelligence': The Drama and Winner's Triangles. Social Work Education. 2005;24(1):97-112. PubMed PMID: 16257018.46. Stein L. The Doctor-Nurse Game. The American Journal of Nursing. 1968 January;68(1):101-5.47. Stein L, Watts DT, Howell T. The doctor-nurse game revisited. New England Journal of Medicine. 1990;322:546-9.48. Feldman A. The role of conversation in collaborative action research. Educational Action Research. 1999;7(1):125-47.49. Hollingsworth S. Learning to Teach through Collaborative Conversation: A Feminist Approach. American Educational Research Journal. 1992 06/01/;29(2):373-404. PubMed PMID: EJ449457.50. Wisanskoonwong P, Fahy K, Hastie C. Reflections on the practice of facilitating group-based antenatal education: should a midwife wear a uniform in the hospital setting? Int J Nurs Pract. 2011 Dec;17(6):628-35. PubMed PMID: 22103830.51. Chinn PL. Peace and power: New Directions For Building Community. 8th ed. ed. Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers; 2013.52. Dick B. Helping groups to be effective: Skills, processes & concepts for group facilitation 2nd ed. Chapel Hill, Qld: Interchange; 1991.53. Eunson B. Communicating in the 21st century. 3rd ed. Milton, Queensland: John Wiley and Sons Australia; 2012.54. Gido J, Clements JP. Successful Project Management. 5th ed. Mason, OH: South Western Cengage Learning; 2012.55. Goleman D. Emotional Intelligence. Bloomsbury: Great Britain; 1996.56. Goleman D. Social Intelligence: The New Science of Human Relationships. London: Hutchinson; 2006. 403 p.57. Ohland MW, Loughry ML, Woehr DJ, Bullard LG, Felder RM, Finelli CJ, et al. The Comprehensive Assessment of Team Member Effectiveness: Development of a Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale for Self- and Peer Evaluation. Academy of Management Learning & Education. 2012 December 1, 2012;11(4):609-30.58. Boud D, Falchikov N. Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 2006 //;31(4):399-413.

22

59. Levitis DA, Lidicker Jr WZ, Freund G. Behavioural biologists do not agree on what constitutes behaviour. Animal Behaviour. 2009 7//;78(1):103-10.60. Smith MK. Jean Lave, Etienne Wenger and 'communities of practice’, the encyclopedia of informal education infed: YMCA George Williams College; 2003, 2009 [cited 2013 Jan 6th ]. Available from: www.infed.org/biblio/communities_of_practice.htm.61. Yallop C, Bernard JR, Blair D, Butler S, Delbridge A, Peters P, et al., editors. Macquarie Dictionary. 4th ed. North Ryde: Macquarie Library; 2005.62. Stevens DD, Levi A. Introduction to Rubrics: An Assessment Tool to Save Grading Time, Convey Effective Feedback and Promote Student Learning. Sterling, VA/US: Stylus Publishing; 2004.

23