Learning teamwork in architectural education

LEARNING TEAMWORK

IN ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION

Edward David Brett Springett

Bachelor of Science (UNSW)

Bachelor of Architecture (UNSW)

University of Technology Sydney

Faculty of Design Architecture and Building

Masters of Architecture by Research

2006

File: Masters 061101 Finai.doc 11:30 PM - 1 November 2006 Page i of 106

Learning Teamwork in Architecture Preface

Preface

Dedication

To Michelle, my main team member.

Acknowledgements

To all my students and the other teachers who have participated in the study over the

years I have taught at University of Technology Sydney in the Architecture School

and especially to all those who have worked within my studio and who have had to

put up with all my ideas.

My thanks also go to Dr Kaye Remington, Dr John Tywford and Dr Peter Burgess,

Thanks for being part of the journey.

File: Masters 061101 Final.doc 11:30 PM - 1 November 2006 Page i of 106


Statement of Authenticity and Original Authorship

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet

requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution.

To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously

published or written by another person except where due reference is made.

Signature

Date if ')\ Cf

File: Masters 061101 Final.doc 11:30 PM - 1 November 2006 Page ii of 106


Abstract

This work explores the learning of teamwork in the education of professional

architects within the context of co-operative education or work-based learning.

Using Grounded Theory, three experiences of Teamwork are studied: Taught

Teamwork, which was taught at University of Technology, Sydney over a specific

period of time; Learned Teamwork, based on experiential learning; and Accidental

Teamwork, teamwork that is derived from experiences both inside and outside the

University.

This study utilises results from earlier research in teamwork and in the management

of teams, especially the research by Meredith Belbin and others, and a model of

teamwork developed by Meredith Belbin. Evidence is presented from the published

literature in the field including reviews of current and past theories, and empirical

studies. Initially students in the study regarded learning about professional teamwork

as secondary during their architectural studies but this research revealed that they

later reassessed teamwork as a critical skill in their professional careers.

The basic propositions underpinning this research are that learning teamwork

involves both reflection and integrating new knowledge with past experiences, and

that teamwork is an appropriate topic to be taught within the university setting. The

analysis is conducted from a perspective of both learning teamwork and the

governance of teams. The data and analysis offers support for an argument that

teamwork is an important skill for professional architects and can be taught in an

academic setting. Recommendations for further research are outlined.

File: Masters 061101 Final, doc 11:30 PM - 1 November 2006 Page iii of 106


Research Endeavour

The aim of this research was to investigate teamwork as a pedagogical frame within

the architecture program at University of Technology Sydney and the workplace.

This research was also a review of the specific attributes of teamwork and the roles

individuals take within a team using a specific psychometric instrument, the "Belbin

Self Perception Inventory Profile" (BSPIP).

This study was used to investigate the efficacy of the Belbin model as an instrument

for teaching teamwork. Past students were invited to complete a survey and an in

depth interview about what they had studied about teamwork and how they used

teamwork in their professional practice. The data was analysed to explore students’

experiences of the academic study of teamwork. The analysis of the comments and

reflections from the students’ surveys and interviews was used to explore the nexus

between learned teamwork during their architectural education and teamwork as

experienced in professional practice.

Keywords

Architectural Professional Practice, Teamwork, Belbin Self Perception Inventory

Profile, Participatory Action Research, Grounded Theory, Experiential Learning,

Practice Based Learning.

File: Masters 061101 Final, doc 11:30 PM - 1 November 2006 Page iv of 106

Learning Teamwork in Architecture

Table of Contents

Preface....................................................................................................................... iAbstract....................................................................................................................iiiResearch Endeavour................................................................................................ iv

Table of Contents........................................................................................................ vList of Figures............................................................................................................. vii1. Introduction................................................................................................................ 1

Teamwork for Architects.......................................................................................... 3Learning about Teamwork in Architecture.............................................................. 3Contribution to knowledge....................................................................................... 5

2. Literature Review.......................................................................................................6Background...............................................................................................................6Belbin team model................................................................................................... 9Critical views of Belbin instruments.........................................................................9Problems with Belbin role model........................................................................... 11Studies into experiential learning............................................................................ 12Studies into knowledge of, and teaching about, Teamwork....................................12Psychometric instruments........................................................................................13Alternate views on psychometric instruments.........................................................14Problems in Teamwork...........................................................................................14Research on Teamwork in Architecture..................................................................15Professional tests for registration as an architect.................................................... 15Professional tests for employment.......................................................................... 16Summary of literature review................................................................................. 16

3. Research Methods.....................................................................................................17Introduction........................................................................................................ 17Grounded theory and research.................................................................................18Grounded theory applied to research study.............................................................19Placing the research within academic teaching...................................................... 21Other research models............................................................................................ 22Other forms of data experience............................................................................... 23Use of questionnaire............................................................................................... 24The questions and their background.......................................................................25Selection of participants......................................................................................... 26Methodological issues of this work........................................................................27

4. Results....................................................................................................................... 28General web-based survey results...........................................................................29Initial results...........................................................................................................29General data section Q1 - Q8 from web-based survey............................................30Q9 - Q18 Ranking questions section.......................................................................32Nil or not applicable (N/A) responses.....................................................................32Q19 - Q24 Analysis of open questions section from web-based survey.................37Recorded interviews............................................................................................... 46

File: Masters 061101 Final, doc 11:30 PM - 1 November 2006 Page v of 106


Interviews...............................................................................................................47Typical questions....................................................................................................47Analysis of interviews............................................................................................ 48Web-based survey data correlated with interview data...........................................49Learning about Teamwork and Belbin role models................................................61Results overall.........................................................................................................62Gender issues..........................................................................................................64Adult education compared to other forms of education..........................................64Teamwork in higher & adult education.................................................................. 65Different levels of learning Teamwork.................................................................. 66Teamwork analysis by the students........................................................................70Conflict within Teams............................................................................................ 72Disclosure by students............................................................................................ 73Teamwork in the architectural workplace.............................................................. 73Experimentation in Teamwork...............................................................................74Hygiene issues of teaching and experiencing Teamwork.......................................75Role-playing and experiential learning.................................................................. 77Summary of results................................................................................................ 78

5. Discussion.................................................................................................................. 80Research process.....................................................................................................81Taught Teamwork...................................................................................................83Learned Teamwork....... .......... ................................... ..................... . 83Accidental Teamwork............................................................................................ 84Additional findings..................................................................................................85Emerging results.....................................................................................................85Personal reflection of the researcher.......................................................................87Conclusion..............................................................................................................88Future research........................................................................................................89

6. Bibliography..............................................................................................................907. Appendices................................................................................................................94

A: Extract AACA Mandatory Skills for Registration as Architect......................... 94B: AACA Competency Standards...........................................................................95C: The Belbin Team Role Model............................................................................96C: Belbin Self Perception Inventory Profile (BSPIP) Questionnaire SampleReport..................................................................................................................... 97D: Subject evaluation results 2005......................................................................... 98E: Typical email text to past students......................................................................99G: Web-based survey blank questions..................................................................100H: Execl Spreadsheet of Base Data Ranking Questions....................................... 106

File: Masters 061101 Final doc 11:30 PM - 1 November 2006 Page vi of 106


List of Figures

Figure 1 Q3 Have you become registered as an architect?....................................... 30

Figure 2 Q9 Was teaching in teamwork at UTS effective?....................................... 33

Figure 3 Q10 Did the teaching in teamwork assist you in your study at UTS?........ 33

Figure 4 Qll Did the teaching in teamwork assist in your professional role in the

workplace while you were studying?................................................................ 34

Figure 5 Q12 Teamwork learnt at the Cooperative/part time workplace was

beneficial to my study........................................................................................ 34

Figure 6 Q13 Do you think learning about teamwork during the cooperative/part time

workplace was the best way to learn this?......................................................... 35

Figure 7 Q14 Did the teaching in teamwork at university allow you to adopt roles

during teamwork study you were not able to do at the workplace?...................35

Figure 8 Q15 Do you think the teaching of teamwork allowed you to think about

your future role in architecture?......................................................................... 36

Figure 9 Q16 Have you been able to utilise what was taught at university in the

teamwork subject/topic since you graduated?....................................................36

Figure 10 Q17 Was being taught teamwork at university better than learning

teamwork at the workplace?.............................................................................. 37

Figure 11 Q18 Do you think the teamwork subject/topic was a waste of time?....... 37

File: Masters 061101 Final, doc 11:30 PM - 1 November 2006 Page vii of 106

Learning Teamwork in Architecture 1. Introduction

1. Introduction

Teamwork is experienced in any human interaction where a group of individuals

work together to achieve a common goal. For most of us this can be with family,

sport, education and employment. For architects teamwork is a core professional

activity with colleagues, clients and professional associates to achieve an

architectural project.

I was always in a team through childhood, whether it was in school, sport or selling

newspapers, later as a student studying at university, or when I worked as part of a

professional team as a registered architect and educator. What has helped me along

this path was the recognition of people and the things they bring to a team or group

trying to achieve a common objective. When working with others I observed some

people who would work well together and some who were okay by themselves or

were unable to work in teams. None of this teamwork was taught or studied when I

went to University to study architecture. While I was practicing as an architect I

participated in teaching teamwork as part of continual professional education to

builders at the Master Builders Association and to architects at The Royal Australian

Institute of Architects. In 1994, while teaching professional practice in the

Architecture School at the University of Technology, Sydney, I was introduced to a

method of team-thinking1 based upon roles and role-play that struck a chord with me

and matched my experiences in professional practice as a registered architect.

From 1996,1 have developed specific assessment events for my subjects in the field

of Professional Practice. These involved methods of teaching teambuilding and team

roles as part of a specific subject area of professional practice covering, amongst

other things, marketing and the establishment of professional service firms.

Meredith Belbin’s work (1981), to be discussed in Chapter 2, was used as a model to

help students understand that different people adopt different behaviour or team roles

within teams in architectural firms. After introducing specific team roles, using the

Belbin Team Role model, the students were invited, but not compelled, to undertake

Thanks to Lyn Crawford and Patrick Healy and their innovative teaching method and style during lectures to

Architecture students in 1994 and 1995.

File: Masters 061101 Final, doc 11:30 PM - 1 November 2006 Page 1 of 106


a Belbin Self Perception Inventory Profile (BSPIP) developed by Meredith Belbin.

Between 1994 and 2004 a total of 449 students studied this subject area. The

students were asked to form teams and reflect upon their team performance and roles

as one part of their assessment. Later I met with some of these students during their

professional careers as graduates or as registered architects and discussed their

experiences in practice after graduation. I was struck by their responses about

aspects of teaching about teamwork that seemed to capture an important professional

skill that they needed as architects, and how those thoughts were coming from

students who were practising as professional architects. I resolved to study this as an

academic at University of Technology, Sydney, and commenced a Masters in

Architecture (Research) in 2001. As a corollary this research also helps clarify

issues surrounding teamwork within the practice of architecture and how the study of

teamwork at the University level can be helpful when students become architects and

are in architectural practice.

Many would see architecture as being a singularly lonely profession, where the

professional occupies a lofty idealistic situation, without hindrance or association

with others. If others are involved then the professional is the undisputed leader and

dictator of all their professional activities. The myth of the lone architect has been

promulgated by fictional books such as The Honeywood File (Creswell, 1943), The

Fountainhead (Rand, 1953) and academic works such as The Image of the Architect

(Saint, 1983). These authors have popularised the concept of the professional

architect as an individual, working alone, divorced from the reality of current

professional architectural life. However, architects existing without others could be

regarded in a position akin to a medical doctor without a team of nurses, pathologists

and other allied support. This popular image of the architect as the lonely artist in

their office is not congruent with the reality of the profession within society today.

Architectural professional practice has also been described in a more pragmatic way

(Crinson, 1994; Cuff, 1991; Williamson, 1991) where the professional architect

works closely in collaboration with a team of specialists, each contributing their own

area of expertise to achieve the successful completion of the building project.

However very little research has been conducted to investigate this teamwork in

architectural practice or architectural education.



Teamwork for Architects

For the purpose of this work I have used the terms 'team' and 'teamwork'

interchangeably with 'groups' and 'groupwork'. These terms have been applied as

follows: a team is a group of individuals who have come together by some means to

achieve a common goal where each member performs part of the tasks and relies

upon other team members to achieve the common goal. Teamwork is more than just

a group of people working closely with each other. Teams have a specific identity

with shared objectives where team members need to coordinate with and rely upon

each other to get the work done (Welbourn, 2001). Typically team members act

independently as well as together and teams can act in a wide variety of ways e.g.

determination and conduct of leadership, the scope of each individual's involvement

in the team, choosing the methods used to conduct the work performed and the team

can also manage itself (Parker & Williams, 2001). Teamwork also involves social

interaction as well as technical team processes to achieve an objective (Kline, 1999)2.

This study is about teamwork in the students' workplace both while they were

studying and after they had graduated, and when some members of the research

sample had qualified and become registered as architects. ..................

Learning about Teamwork in Architecture

Teaching in architectural professional practice strand of subjects involves preparing

someone to work in professional teams by encouraging debate, reflection and

providing knowledge to assist them to work with others to achieve common goals. I

taught this part of professional teamwork by lectures and experiential learning. The

lectures covered specific subject areas of marketing, fees, service delivery, and the

attributes of architectural firms. The experiential learning was based upon the

principles established by Kolb (1984). These principles involve providing examples:

encouraging reflective observation, analysing abstract concepts, and encouraging

active experimentation, through the application of short exercises. The exercises

reinforced these principles by encouraging students to listen, think, and then do

something in a different context, and by doing so, enact and hold the learnt

knowledge.

2 This requires further study and examination of practice by members of the profession.

File: Masters 061101 Final.doc 11:30 PM - 1 November 2006 Page 3 of 106


Kolb's work accords with my own experiences in learning and teaching. The

students were given an introduction to teamwork as well as an understanding of

knowledge about the classic style of a professional services team (Drucker, 1961).

Then they were taken through several tasks in class. Teams were formed in different

ways that encouraged them to focus on aspects of teamwork that would be

appropriate to them in their future professional career. This was informed by a

variety of resources that used work by Kolb and other adult-learning theorists as a

reference point for their design of teaching programs (Bendaly, 1996; Jones, 1997;

Sleigh, 1990). After this was finished the main goal for the students was the

completion and presentation of the work they had prepared together as a team during

the semester and a submission of written work reflecting on teamwork.

Teamwork is a skill that is not taught in most professional courses in architecture as a

specific subject area. Some architects continue to hold the view that what they are

doing as a professional architect is not teamwork at all (Broadbent, 1973; Kollar,

1980) and would see the creative act of architecture as something that transcends the

group and is an individual act alone. The creative impulse is, by their definition, an

individual response. This is all very well in theory but the actual practice of

architecture is much more pragmatic (Cuff, 1991). Dana Cuff was a sociologist who

observed architects working in practice. She observed that the architect is usually

one of many individuals who are part of a team with the common goal of the

successful completion of a project. Other individuals, despite what the architect may

think or do, will be involved in the outcome of the project in both its shape and

function. However Cuff (1991, p.73) also observes that: "the quality of a work of

art decreases in proportion to the number of people involved in its creation." Here

the statement implies that a creative act works best with fewer rather than more

participants. An architect works in a real world, not a 'tabula rasa'3 where they can

dictate all manner of style, function and assembly of the final built project. Some

writers (Caudill, 1971; O'Mara, 1997; RAIA, 1999) argue that the real act of

architecture for an architect is the successful bringing together and collaborating with

a number of individuals and directing them to the conclusion of the project.

3 Acting within a space that has no prior experience or influence, the architect is acting on a bare canvas.

File: Masters 061101 FinaLdoc 11:30 PM- 1 November 2006 Page 4 of 106


Contribution to knowledge

Architects work through others to achieve the projects they envision. Clients,

builders and other consultants form part of the team for completing a building

project. Even if the architect is not engaged for full services but only for a part of a

project, the architect still has to form a team with consultants or others associated

with a project. Teamwork has been studied extensively as part of general

professional attributes and a number of writers (Covey, 1989; Goleman, 1995;

McGregor, 1960) present current theories and methods for application in this area.

Significantly little research has been conducted with respect to the learning of

teamwork and practice of teamwork in professional disciplines such as architecture.

This study aims to redress this deficiency focussing on the student experience.

In Chapter 2 I examine the literature in the area and discuss research on teamwork in

general and pertaining to professional teams, and as it applies to architectural

practice. Then I explore the literature about teaching teamwork in an educational

setting. In Chapter 3 I discuss the research method and investigate various

approaches and impacts upon this study. I present and review the results and

evaluate the data received through the survey and interviews and make relevant

summaries of the results in Chapter 4. In the final Chapter 5 I discuss the results and

make recommendations for areas of future research and analysis.


Learning Teamwork in Architecture 2. Literature Review

2. Literature Review

Background

There is a wide range of literature on teamwork. We first have to place the study of

teamwork in a historical perspective, recognising that studying human behaviour in

teamwork is difficult because the study of the human mind and its actions is not a

precise science and it defies clear cut statements or calculations (Morris, 1977).

From the beginning of the 19th century, with the rise of large industrialised

organisations, time and motion studies on teams and individuals were performed.

Organisations wanted to be able to analyse and predict workplace outcomes. Various

writers began studying the essential nature of individual work and how the individual

acted in the workplace in team roles to find more efficient processes.

An early writer, Frederick W. Taylor (1911), studied the workflow and assembly

lines in large manufacturing organisations to find ways to record work in terms of

time, output and performance (Hildebrandt & Smith, 1994). Taylor postulated four

principles about measurement of work: dividing production into separate elements,

eliminating unnecessary activities, supervision and timing of each work cycle, and

payment for each portion of work. Based on these measurements, faster workers

were rewarded, and the system was enforced by foremen, as distinct from owners,

through control of the process rather than control of the whole team. Taylorism, as it

became known, developed from the rise of management science and time and motion

studies, showed great promise for industry to improve financial performance (Gulick

& Urwick, 1954; Urwick & Brech, 1944).

Other researchers studied ways of measuring the individual's psyche. In the 1920s

Carl Jung researched the human psyche and came to new ways of looking at

individuals (Hildebrandt & Smith, 1994). Jung’s work was particularly important as

his typology celebrated individual differences (Jung, 1921) in contrast with other

theorists who had developed ranking systems of intelligence which were based on

arbitrary norms such as numerical values (Binet, 1903; Terman, 1917). Studies of

normal emotions, including the 'DISC' model (Dominance, Influence, Submission,



and Compliance), which sought to represent the individual as a series of simple

factors, were also developed (Marston, 1923).

Another early writer was Abraham Maslow who in the 1930s represented individual

motivation as a hierarchy of the needs individuals have within themselves that can be

activated when working with others (Harding & Long, 1998; Hildebrandt & Smith,

1994; Maslow, 1970). Frederick Herzberg who studied hygiene and motivation

factors further explored these ideas (Herzberg, 1959).

Management as a science continued to develop throughout the 20th century. Henry

L. Gantt (Scott, 1964), an engineering disciple of Taylor, studied new methods of

presenting data using graphical means to predict the completion of projects and

created forms of teamwork analysis which rewarded efficient workers. These

methods, that used time and resources, were applied to teams of workers to achieve

objectives.

After Jung, Maslow and Taylor, new researchers became interested in the process of

humans working together (Follet, 1925; Mayo, 1933; Pareto, 1935; McGregor,

1960). The underpinning belief was that by understanding the whole person and how

they conducted themselves in their lives, a preferred way of working could be

developed as a natural part of the working life. That is, work could include those

things people wanted to do as a preferred activity rather than being compelled, like

slavery or being born into a trade, like the feudal systems of craft and serfdom. This

preferred work style would be the most efficient and most progressive. One of these

researchers, Douglas McGregor (1960), differentiated two theories of organisations,

Theory X and Theory Y. In Theory X, he asserted, amongst other things, that money

was seen as the only reward and that employees had to be rigidly supervised at work

in teams. In Theory Y, he asserted that job satisfaction and job security was seen as

all important. He recommended an inclusive work place where people were included

in goals, objectives and work methods for the best results (McGregor, 1969;

McGregor, Bennis, & Schein, 1966; Shtogren, 1999). Although Theory X and

Theory Y have been employed in many dimensions in the workplace it is particularly

relevant to teamwork because, according to McGregor (1969), an inclusive team



using the Theory Y methods will be more effective than a team that uses Theory X

methods.

In 1933 another researcher, Elton Mayo, identified what came to be known as the

Hawthorne Effect, where individuals as well as teams will change their behaviour

when they are being observed and interest is shown in their efforts (Briskin, 1996;

Pugh & Hickson, 1997; Wren & Greenwood, 1998). This research leads to the

conclusion that any change in the work environment could produce a change in

productivity. A key factor was found to be that an increase in the level of interest in

the workers, was perceived as inclusive and positive, and had a positive effect on

output, and workers' satisfaction increased.

The end of World War II brought a new workforce that had to be re-educated into

industry. Various educational institutes, such as the Tavistock Institute and the

Henley Management College at Oxford (Perlmutter, 1965), were set up to bring the

new science of management into the manufacturing workplaces. Meredith Belbin, a

reader at Oxford University who was involved in research into how older people

could be re-educated in new roles (1969), went on to continue his research on

teamwork at the Henley Management College. This work led him to his prominent

research about roles in teamwork (Belbin, 1981).

In addition Bruce W. Tuckman (1965) developed a theory about teams that involved

seeing teams as separate entities from individuals. He studied teams passing through

a series of developmental phases: forming, storming, norming and performing. In

the forming stage the team members oriented themselves towards team goals and

found out about each other by observation, and testing the boundaries of leadership

and standards of work expected. The storming stage was the creative period where

conflict and polarisation of team members is most evident. The norming phase

emerges as the team comes together to act cohesively and individual emotions are

subordinated to team goals. When interpersonal relationships are channelled into

achieving team objectives, the performing stage is evident. He added a fifth stage of

team development in 1977, with Mary Ann Jensen, called the 'adjourning' phase

(Tuckman 1984) that identified the stresses of a team after it had completed its



objective and was being disbanded. His theory relied upon a linear or staged model

of team development.

Belbin team model

Meredith Belbin (1981) researched and prepared his team role model after studying

groups of managers learning and applying management skills using a management

simulation game. He devised a different set of descriptors and criteria for team

workers in terms of how they work within teams and was able to predict when the

teams would be able to work together based upon the Belbin Self Perception

Inventory Profile (BSPIP) the team-workers completed before they underwent testing

as a team. Other researchers (C. J. Margerison & Lewis, 1981; D. Turner & Greco,

1998) added roles and altered descriptions of the roles within teams. Others have

used different forms of psychometric instruments (Anon, 2003), and some have tried

to build a similar set with different titles to emulate the original Belbin profiles (C.

Margerison & McCann, 1984; C. J. Margerison & Lewis, 1981).

One difference which distinguishes Belbin’s latest model (1995) from others is that

his role categories are based on the work-roles performed in a team setting and

include dimensions such as 'creativity' (the Plant role), 'high level analysis' (Monitor-

Evaluator) and Specialist (brings specific skills to the team task). Although some

other models include behaviour similar to the Monitor-Evaluator role they do not

differentiate between high-level analytical thinking and formulaic, rule-bound

thinking. I have not discovered another model that includes the 'creative role' (Plant)

that in a profession such as architecture, is of fundamental importance. Belbin

describes the Plant, Monitor-Evaluator and Specialist roles as the ‘thinking’ roles.

The Specialist role, defined by Belbin as the role that brings specific knowledge and

expertise to the team, is also important in architectural practice given the number of

different specialist experts that contribute to a work of architecture.

Critical views of Belbin instruments

The literature has been both positive (Senior, 1998b) and critical (Fumham, 1993) of

the method and norms Belbin developed. The critical comments on the method and



norms that Belbin developed are by Fumham (1993) who tried to replicate the results

using a statistical survey of a group of managers who completed the Belbin

psychometric instrument (BSPIP). He was very critical of the resultant data. He

reported that some team roles were absent amongst a typical normal distribution

group and other roles were not represented in the manner predicted by Belbin. The

report was published in the Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology

in 1993. The editors of the journal asked Belbin (1993a) to reply, and he commented

that the early work used by Fumham was outdated and no longer used. In 1995, in

answer to Fumham’s criticism, Belbin proposed an additional team role called

'Specialist', supported by additional research which he claims readdressed all the

norms and values contained in the original versions of the Belbin Profile, and he

presented a revised version of the BSPIP. The statistical basis for Belbin’s results

and norms has also been evaluated by Senior (1998a) who found his results did not

match typical population distribution statistics that could be expected but the roles

and general statements did have some correlation.

Belbin has continued to work on the norms of his model, within a computer program

called Interplace, to accommodate some of the current thinking about how

understanding of teams has evolved (M. Belbin, 1993b, 1996, 1997). He has also

researched and written about how the nature of work should be defined rather than

only the teams who do the work (M. Belbin, 2000), and how modern theory has to

take account of gender roles (M. Belbin, 2001). Some of these ideas have been

implemented in new versions of the Interplace software. I was not able to use these

new versions of the software as part of my teaching process as they were not

available to the University of Technology, Sydney. These ideas were also outside

the area of teaching I wanted to do in the limited time available, where the main

outcome was to develop an awareness of team roles in architecture.

Other researchers have compared Belbin's roles with other role descriptors from

other psychometric instruments (Doenau, 1995; Rushmer, 1996). They found some

correlation for some of the roles but not others. There are also other instruments that

have been compared with Belbin instruments, e.g. Myers Briggs Type Indicator

(MBTI) (Watson, 2002), and MTR-I (S. Myers, 2000). After searching for a quicker

method of getting the team role data, a web page that allows students to enter details



and responses and download a counselling report was found that offers simple

comparative analysis with Belbin, Myers Briggs and MTR-I (Chapman, 2005).

Other designers are also creating web sites that emulate Belbin (Anon, 2003) but

these do not have such a wide range of reports nor the theoretical or statistical

background to validate their work.

Problems with Belbin role model

The Belbin Team role counselling report has an impact upon the individual because

it is presented in a positive way to the student (see sample report at Appendix C).

The counselling report is a personal means for the student to empower themselves in

teamwork. The terms used in the report give the student new ways of looking and

studying what they have experienced before in teams and allows them to reframe

their internal perspective and how this relates to other members of the team.

However the Belbin roles and reports do not determine the actual effectiveness of the

team by themselves (Groen, 2000). Teams change, and the students become more

aware of the interactions and experiences as the team matures and changes and

passes through the phases as noted by Tuckman. There is no description of the team

itself from Belbin only that an unbalanced team will be not as effective as a team

who recognises and adjusts for the imbalance or is re-arranged to become more

balanced. The ecology of the team environment is also important to the team

actually maturing. If the environment does not allow each team to have its own

identity then the team will change or disperse despite the effort made in coming

together (Mayo, 1999; Pressman, 2001). The work of coming together in a team

where you rely upon others and others rely upon you may be difficult and

emotionally dangerous. The various hygiene factors as described elsewhere are not

readily transposed to the Belbin typology and the current literature does not appear to

have researched the impact of these factors on the Belbin model.

Despite the valid criticisms of the norms and the statistical basis for Belbin's original

work I believe the reports have a useful impact and validity for the purposes of

raising awareness about professional teamwork and its place in architectural

cooperative education. What the critical work has done is informed and allowed me

to widen my original survey questions to include other responses that may be useful,

File: Masters 061101 Final, doc 11:30 PM- 1 November 2006 Page 11 of 106


as well as researching Belbin profiles that the students had completed while they

were studying.

Studies into experiential learning

Simply put, experiential learning means the act of doing to learn and know

something. Learning is achieved through discovery which includes reflection during

interaction (Argyris & Schon, 1974; Kolb, 1984; Moon, 2004; Schon, 1983). Team

exercises are examples of experiential learning. In team exercises students are

encouraged to see the theoretical implications of their actions, usually through some

form of game play (D. Leigh, 1991; E. Leigh & Kinder, 1999; Sleigh, 1990). As a

result of these learning experiences students are more able to develop their own ideas

and put them into action.

Studies into knowledge of, and teaching about, Teamwork

It would appear that most of the available literature on teamwork is based upon

Western educational systems and is specific to a Western culture based model rather

than other cultures, e.g. Eastern, Indian or other ethnic backgrounds. This indicates a

fertile area for further research. Architecture is a profession that is practised

throughout a diverse range of different ethnic and cultural groups. Perhaps a set of

norms that applies to architects could be derived that has an application to a wider set

of values. Belbin, in his later works, discusses the lack of culturally specific research

on teamwork (M. Belbin, 2001).

Ramsden (1992, 1998) and Perry (1988) drew attention to differences between

learning in the classroom and learning at work. Students in their learning about

teamwork are encouraged to find their own pathways and to come to terms with the

levels of knowledge they create (Perry, 1988). What the teacher has to do is to

encourage a deeper thinking about the process and outcome which is not encouraged

in the workplace (Ramsden, 1992, 1998).

Learning about teamwork in design-based projects in education is another area that

has been researched (Eiger & Russell, 2002). This work covers the issue of

creativity in a team simulation over a web-based studio. It does not focus on the



teamwork itself but uncovers issues that relate to teamwork. Pynadath and Tambe

(2002) studied teamwork in military and warfare situations using a purely

quantitative model. The results are difficult to relate to in any practical way for

teaching teamwork in architecture.

There are also studies on teamwork and learning for teamwork in higher education

(Isabella L., 2003; Stewart & Godel, 1999; Taylor, 1997). Each of these texts had

something to say about teams and teamwork. However these texts focus on conflict,

contextual, leadership or performance issues without consideration of the individual's

role or typology within the team.

Psychometric instruments

Psychometric instruments are questionnaires with sets of answers that have been

established by a set or norms usually derived from statistical surveys. Since the 19th

century various writers and researchers have been studying personality and

behaviour and developing terms.to describe them*. These terms can be identified and

differentiated in individuals. Carl Jung (as cited in Hildebrandt & Smith, 1994) in

his writing on personality types and postulated that individual personality can be

classified into three types: extraversion-introversion, sensing-intuition, and thinking

feeling. Isobel Briggs-Myers (1976) expanded the categories and added judging-

perceiving as a fourth criterion and developed the Myer-Briggs Type Indicator

(MBTI), a set of questions and responses that indicates personality types based upon

variants of the basic human personality traits as developed by Jung. Using these

criteria, an individual’s response to a series of questions are scored against a set of

normative answers. The results are then categorised into pre-defined personality

types. Such psychometric instruments can vary from the simplistic as seen in many

glossy magazines, to well validated questionnaires such as Myers-Briggs (I. B.

Myers & McCaulley, 1985; I. B. Myers & Myers, 1995; Provost & Anchors, 1987)

which has an extensive background of statistical data establishing their normative

values.



Alternate views on psychometric instruments

Are psychometric instruments good indicators of actions by participants? There are

a huge number of instruments that are created and used each year. Entire web sites

have been created to allow the casual user to test and verify themselves, often for a

fee. The temporal stability of these instruments has been studied (McCann, 1998).

This research found evidence for the use of such instruments in the designated roles

as being good aides to predict final values, subject to the proper and exhaustive

checking process of the norms used within the instruments. Other research by Tom

Buchanan (2003) shows a contrary view to the validity of online completion of

psychometric instruments. While the research is only at a preliminary stage, he

discussed how some participants were willing to exaggerate or lie in their responses.

Problems in Teamwork

Marlene Turner reviewed team-based studies where the use of team roles and

teamwork gave rise to the notion that some individuals would not employ their full

skills because of various factors (M. E. Turner, 2001). For example team workers

would 'loaf in the team management work given certain conditions. Turner and

others (Karau & Williams, 2001) explored 'team loafing' and studied a variety of

statistical data to show how many teams do not work because some team players do

not take their roles seriously or hide from doing teamwork which would then be done

by other team members. This 'loafing' is seen as a significant problem in teamwork.

As some team members hide within the team, other team members become

concerned about the justice and equity of having to carry team members by doing

work for them. This leads to a variety of 'hygiene' factors such as harmony,

procedure, equity and others (Cropanzano & Schminke, 2001). To combat this in the

teamwork assessment when teamwork was taught, an assessment tool was used, the

Self and Peer Assessment Tool Kit (SPARK), which allows students to give

confidential feedback (Freeman & McKenzie, 2002). This confidential feedback,

about each of the other members of a team, can be used to calculate a numerical

factor to modify the student's summative assessment (Cannon, 1988; Crooks, 1988;

Newbie & Cannon, 1989). Use of SPARK has led to a change in the dynamic of

teams since its introduction in 2004 and in other subjects taught by the researcher.



Research on Teamwork in Architecture

There has been little research conducted on the teaching of teamwork as a specific

subject area in a vocational degree such as the Bachelor of Architecture at UTS. The

practice of architecture requires teamwork but I could not find any University

curriculum in Australia specifically identifying a subject that teaches teamwork. The

architecture degree is a professional qualification (AACA, 2001) and is a legal

requirement for registration as an architectural practitioner (see Appendix A, AACA

Guidelines). During the course of undergraduate architectural education at the

University of Technology, Sydney, which was the focus of this study, students were

required to be working in an architectural workplace. In America there has been

some research on teamwork in architectural practices with regard to creativity and

leadership rather than learning about teamwork itself (Cuff, 1991).

Within Australia, the Royal Australian Institute of Architects (RAIA) publish a

comprehensive set of advisory notes giving guidance on a wide variety of

professional issues. The advisory note on Teamwork, AN 06.02.302 (RAIA, 1999),

discusses teamwork in a simplistic manner and raises more issues than answers. It

only describes teamwork without mentioning individual roles in team objectives and

does not discuss the sorts of teams or how teams could be assessed in terms of

performance or training.

Professional tests for registration as an architect

The skill set for the professional practice of architecture is set down in the AACA

Mandatory Skills (see Appendix B). All architects have to complete an AACA

logbook, and be able to pass an AACA examination and verbal interview and

complete Continuing Education while they are in professional practice to maintain

their qualifications. Teamwork specifically as a skill is not required or tested.

However it is implied in some of the categories set down for future architects to

comply with. How this could be tested in the future is not covered in this research

study. The AACA logbook, with its requirement for a supervising architect to assess

a prospective architect's skills, is an ideal opportunity for assessing the teamwork

skills of future architects. It achieves this by the candidate completing the logbook

with a variety of experiences and, with a mentor, to verify and sign the logbook. A



new category should be included to be completed by other professionals from the

building industry that they consider the candidate a suitable person to be an architect.

This concept of feedback has been successfully employed by other professionals, e.g.

licensed builders.

Professional tests for employment

Many personnel consultants, when they are advising professional service companies,

such as architectural firms, about new employees use a battery of tests to determine

how a person will fit with a firm and the position and its requirements. The actual

desire for the position or wanting to be an architect does not automatically qualify

one for the position. There are no specific tests for those who want to be an

architect, which have a sufficient set of norms or wide enough database of responses

that could indicate the future success of candidates for such an assessment. The

variety of tests and other instruments for those seeking employment as an architect

have to be adapted from existing tests such as the Belbin BSPIP.

Summary of literature review

There is a wide range of literature on teamwork and it is growing all the time

(Doenau, 1995). The most exhaustive review found, Groups at Work (M. E. Turner,

2001), by its own admission, excludes much of the literature. Most texts on

teamwork in the workplace concentrate on the leadership role in teams or the

individual perception of the teamwork (Drucker, 1961; Maister, 1997). They apply

an external view looking into a team. This view does not recognise the team from

within or the roles individuals have within a team or the various roles that may

develop within a team and how these affect teamwork. In contrast, the Belbin model

proposes a methodology to assess and analyse team behaviour with the emphasis on

the team as an entity as well as the individual's performance within a team. As will

be shown in the research students appreciated the Belbin model as giving them a

context within which they could place their learning activity.


Learning Teamwork in Architecture 3. Research Methods

3. Research Methods

Introduction

From the teaching experiences within the architecture course at UTS I searched for a

variety of resources for use in teaching in Professional Practice in the Architecture

Program. During various professional courses I met with past students who engaged

me with their reminisces about their recent study and they commented upon the

impact various elements of the course had and what had been useful now they were

working as graduates or architects. In particular they mentioned that the various

exercises and assessments involved with specific teamwork classes had such an

impact on their current work as architects. They mentioned their enjoyment and the

various issues they had studied as part of this work.

In studying teamwork I reviewed a wide range of research methods that could be

applied to the area of the study. I was also studying 'Research Methods' in the

Masters of Architecture course. This exposed me to various elements of the two

main fields of research endeavour: quantitative and qualitative methodology.

I then researched quantitative methodology, but apart from the research to establish a

set of values to be used in the Belbin BSPIP, I found nothing relevant to an analysis

of Belbin and teamwork. Other writers had applied quantitative research to the

various claims and research by Belbin (Fumham, 1993; Senior, 1998b). One option

explored was to repeat the Belbin BSPIP study over time with the same group of

students. This would have yielded a quantitative, longitudinal study that could have

been analysed statistically. However I realised the student sample would be too

small to give conclusive results from such a study and there would be difficulties in

maintaining access to the same group of students over time. Investigating other

variables, such as previous teamwork experiences or study, experiences with teams

since graduation and other life experiences, might affect the values and expressions

being studied. However these would give other insights into teaching and learning

about teamwork. The importance of the students' 'lived experiences' led me to

explore qualitative research techniques. What I wanted was for the students to speak

for themselves. They were the ones in teams. I am writing from a team perspective



with the students as a part of my team and I am writing the research study as the

recorder of their experiences.

The work of Glaser (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) introduced me to qualitative methods

but did not initially determine how it could be related to the work I wanted to

research. After reading 'Research Methods' (Heerden, 1999) I realised the data set I

would be dealing with would not necessarily lead to the results and insights I hoped

to find from my research. 'Research Process' (Bouma, 1996) also was an excellent

overview of research methods. I found various accounts of research (Probyn, 2005;

Strauss & Corbin, 1998) which encouraged me to look further into other methods of

research. The absence of control groups and the difficulty of refraining from

interfering with candidates experiences was difficult to overcome within such a small

sample selection. This caused me to think about how I could learn from the

interviewed students and how to let their words be the basis for the outcomes of this

research. I then read various authors, (Ehrich, 1996; Miles & Huberman, 1994;

Morse, 1994) and investigated qualitative methods including Description, Reduction,

Essences and Intentionality (Higgs, 1997, 1998; Tesch, 1990). I was struck by how

authors were discussing serendipity and how my being in various, places at the right

time allowed information to be available for this research. A process of discovery

through grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) seemed therefore to be more

applicable to inform this study.

Grounded theory and research

'Grounded' means finding out something from the data collected in contrast to a

traditional approach in which a preconceived theory is validated by data collected

(Glaser & Strauss, 1967). ‘Grounded’ theory should make sense to those being

studied and to those practicing in the area and the work should reflect the ‘lived

experience’ of the author and the subjects. The strategy for this type of qualitative

research should be based upon readings of data received from the research study and

the data interpreted from a point of view untainted by current research. After the

data has been reviewed several times the reading of other areas of research can then

begin to inform the ideas contained within the survey data. The selection of words

used to code and recode the text can find the theory within the responses rather than

from the ideas or position held by the researcher.



The idea that theory might emerge from data systematically obtained was first put by

Merton (1949) and then extensively researched and analysed (Glaser & Strauss,

1967, p. 3) who listed the following attributes:

1. To enable prediction and explanation of behaviour2. To be useful in the theoretical advance in sociology3. To be useable in practical applications - prediction and

explanation should be able to give the practitioner understanding and some control of situations

4. To provide a perspective on behaviour - a stance to be taken toward data, and

5. To guide and provide a style for research on particular areas of behaviour

These attributes would then be applicable from the data, to the teaching and learning

of teamwork.

Grounded theory applied to research study

Questions asked in the interviews were wide-ranging and open-ended with prompts

about teamwork in order to stimulate responses about teamwork. These responses

were then reduced to a series of codes that were further reduced to determine the

impact of the teaching and to rank the importance of what was experienced by each

participant. Using this process I looked for repeating themes in the responses.

The Grounded Theory model does not employ statistical validation techniques nor

does it require a control group. Grounded Theory acknowledges the value of

comments by individuals who are willing to share their experiences. The

information presented by the participant is taken at face value. If the participant

wants to conceal anything from the interviewer then they can do so. Unlike a

workplace, the experiences at University could be reflected upon without harsh

practical realities such as the introduction of contractual relationships intruding into

what the student can reflect upon.

The insights can be tempered by the time that has past since the events being

recalled. Participants were surveyed using a web-based tool and then interviewed by

telephone. Therefore participants were recounting remembered experiences, some

over a much longer period of time than others. However, in spite of the differences

in time frames, consistencies were found in the reported experiences. The results

from the interviews supported the information obtained from the web-based surveys.



From all of the data, some informed ideas about learning in teamwork in

architectural education emerged.

Grounded theory is derived from analysis (called 'coding') of data from a series of

events or categories in an open manner. An open approach to the interview rather

than rigid hierarchy of questions was used to research the participants’ responses.

From this research, the learning of teamwork was only part of the process of

teamwork being studied. I also wanted to find out what the students thought about

teamwork during their study and when they became architects.

Coding needs to be done over and over again, the researcher immersing in the data

by focussing on the data itself and by presenting data in different ways, before

discerning the emerging data.

I collected the survey data and interviews, and arranged for the recorded interviews

to be transcribed. I coded the data immediately for the first time. During this

coding, in an attempt to minimise external influences, I isolated myself and blocked

out distractions and other influences so that I could be 'saturated' in the data being

coded. This method helped me to analyse the research data as described later. I

recoded the data several times during the preparation of the results using the same

methods, and at other times, using a variety of other methods.

Several coding programs are available. I experimented with Nudist, Nudist Classic,

and TAMS, and finally chose HyperResearch. The coding using HyperResearch was

intuitive and transparent to the actual data, and facilitated immersion into the data.

HyperResearch also produces a straightforward output which could been seen

alongside the actual interview data and this output could be collected to find common

themes. Using HyperResearch I completed coding of the web-based survey response

data and then each of the interviews. I also used colour coding with markers over

printed interviews to further immerse myself in data. I also used the web-based

survey material in a spreadsheet format and used ranking by each of the questions to

get to know the data. I then arranged each of the responses to the open questions

(Q19 - Q24) onto a single page for each question and then coded this using

HyperResearch on computer and also with coloured markers on printed responses.

For this research I have also studied Participatory Action Research (PAR), where

researchers engage with the participants and the subjects are not treated as passive

objects but as one and the same as researchers (Whyte Greenwood & Lazes, 1991



p.20). The participants can change, contribute and analyse their own data for

themselves. Others use PAR with a different focus to promote an engagement and

change agenda for social action (Brydon-Miller 1991 p.80). Teaching in teamwork

is not a means for social change though what has been apparent is the interest in

learning about skills in teamwork that many students have. The use of the BSPIP

and the subsequent impact of the counselling reports produced by the Interplace

software was seen when it was used at the University. The students were impressed

and became more interested in the roles that occur in teams and how their team

counselling reports reflected their perceptions. Once students had more access to the

web, from 2004, they would search for and use some form of modified BSPIP

(S:Team, 2003) for use in the various student projects and assessments using various

other forms of instruments that had a team perspective.

Placing the research within academic teaching

Since 1994 there has been a specific subject area where final year students are

engaged in an experiential process of learning about architectural practice. Students

formed into groups of 4-6 to become simulated architectural firms and prepare as

teams for specific assessable events and submissions. While being introduced to the

subject and assessments, each student cohort was given a specific lecture on a

theoretical basis for teamwork and given a Belbin Self Perception Inventory Profile

(BSPIP) form to complete. The lecture outlined the various team roles and the basis

of the Belbin research (M. Belbin, 1981). The BSPIP was processed by entering the

student responses into a computer program, Interplace VI, and individual and team

counselling reports prepared (see Appendix I for sample report). The students were

given Belbin Counselling reports on their individual team roles. The selection of the

team members for each team was a personal choice or the teacher imposed the

membership depending upon the year. The students then completed the assignment

and assessment tasks. The subject teaching was assessed independently by the

University with Course Evaluation Questionnaires (CEQ) and was given a very high

grading by the students for effectiveness, quality and applicability (see Appendix D).

This study traces ways in which skills are acquired and applied in a range of roles as

an architect and/or in the architectural field. Teamwork, while a difficult subject to



pin down, has a specific set of skills and knowledge that can be acquired in the

University and at the workplace.

Other research models

Some research can be based upon a quantifiable outcome using statistical data.

Research in the area of teamwork appears to have been done on quantitative or

statistical surveys. Various Management texts refer to the success or otherwise of

teamwork process by referring to external measures, such as profit or success (Peters,

1994; Waterman, 1982). Belbin refers to statistical outcomes of the “Teamopoly”

games (M. Belbin, 1981) on his work on Teams and Management. Teamopoly is a

management game devised at the Henley Institute in the UK (Perlmutter, 1965).

However this does not lead to any personal benefits for students or candidates. It

does not lead to any personal insightful interventions. By studying the verbal

responses of candidates over two points in time it was hoped to recover through the

use of semiotics (Cobley & Jansz, 1997) ways and means of intervening at an earlier

stage in a student's career.

However it was my intention to use the material in a grounded method of research in

this study by recording the views about the learning of teamwork by past students.

The application of the results of this data will have ramifications for current and

future students. Indeed the application of such a process to teamwork will lead to an

increased valuing of the University by the students themselves, as they may be able

to gain an immediate, tangible return for their study and application of skills applied

to their study and workplace if they are engaged in the workplace part-time and in

their future role in the profession (Coady, 2000; Rimmington, 1999).

By interviewing, transcribing and then applying reduction and distillation to the web-

based survey responses and transcribed interviews from past students who have

become architects, an interpretation of the teamwork learning process and what

successful teamwork is, in a professional setting, will become known. The insights

that the interviewed participants had were a preliminary set of responses about

teamwork applicable to experiences that have changed and been modified by their

current situation or practice. It is to be expected that candidates will have a different

set of terms for parts of the Belbin process especially with respect to specific roles



and teamwork intricacies due to the length of time between the initial teaching and

this study. This method of research is based upon my reading of Structural

Linguistics (McHoul & Grace, 1993). I have not intended to perform any statistical

data collection other than rudimentary counting and averaging.

The critical analysis of this data was based on the collection of individual responses

and not a statistical set of data. The structure of the interview was carefully

considered to allow the candidate to have a wide-ranging response. Narratative

responses were encouraged and elicited. The responses were analysed by review and

inspection for common themes and dissimilarities.

Other forms of data experience

Learning journals (written) or narratives of experience (verbal by interview) are used

to reveal individual perceptions of selected life episodes in many subject areas in

University education. The emphasis is on individual communication about learning

in a subject area and reflection on personal experiences and differences from normal

values. Similarities with other accounts are not usually considered in these forms of

data. They are also subject to an individual perception of self during a broad episode

('my life as an architect') rather than the recall of events around a specific event that

was being investigated. The use of experience narratives then may be suitable for

this research. They were useful for reinforcement of other learning objectives in the

course curriculum. The relating of these 'lived' experiences was one of the starting

points for this research investigation. The problem with this method is that it may

not produce trustworthy generalisations applicable to others, rather it is a means by

which the education process is continued with the individual student when they are

recalling various events in their experiences. In some years of teaching this subject,

learning journals were called for and individuals' experiences of teamwork and

subject study were noted. The journals are not part of this research study unless

students have given permission and the documents had been kept.

I was also interested in any change over time, of what the students had perceived in

their teamwork, to establish if the knowledge had changed, in reference to the

assumption that "knowledge is both context and time dependent" (Higgs, 1997). The

application of the knowledge in a 'real' situation for the students was directly

applicable to the context of the students' workplace when they were studying.



During their study at University they were required to be working in a professional

situation that required the application of basic team skills. The survey encouraged

(by a random self-selection process and then interviews) students to describe,

interpret and reflect upon events that have a focus on teamwork. While the results

are value bound, because of how the questions were asked and answered, the

interpretation should be left to the researcher.

I would also expect the research to offer some insight into cause and effect of

teamwork in the study and practice of architecture e.g. which factors give rise to

events or the process of learning about teamwork? When considering teamwork and

the Belbin BSPIP, did the giving of the lecture and discussion on the Belbin role

model and the associated individual counselling report give rise to better teamwork

personally for the student, at the workplace and at the academy, both currently and in

the future? Did the participants believe it was an essential part of their study? When

did the student become aware of this? Was there some correlation between what was

done at the University and in the workplace? However identifying a correlation does

not mean that it is the one and only “casual, determining” event, but rather a

coincidence or “casual, incidental” (Thomas, 2003). In teaching, studying and

experiencing teamwork it is apparent that some individuals have a greater proclivity

for teamwork than others for a variety of reasons. The aim of the BSPIP was to

encourage and instruct a group that the specific skills in teamwork are not a dark

science or left only to chance and that the theory in this area of teamwork is a useful

framework. Like riding a bike, some can do it naturally, while others need

instruction, and having had instruction, can surpass the one with natural skills.

Use of questionnaire

The group of students and architects in the sample population was small. It was

expected that not many students would be responsive to a complex, in-depth survey.

While the outcomes would be applicable over a whole group of students the specific

outcomes are such that the individual responses would be significant and would be

able to lead to a final conclusion. The initial questions in the survey were tested and

the number of questions reduced to ensure the survey was as simple and

straightforward as possible. The questions and responses were arranged so the

participant would only have to pass through three sections, they could see their other



answers when they were answering questions and they were allowed to re-edit and

delete responses, as they wanted (see Appendix G).

The questions and their background

The questions were prepared after a review and analysis of the various works on

interview questions in research (Milne, 1999). At first I was looking for actual

results that I could use in a quantitative way. My study led me to various texts and I

studied statistical analysis of various experiments (Campbell & Stanley, 1963;

Warwick & Lininger, 1975). However I could not determine how emotional

responses to teamwork could be assessed by statistics. I was impressed with the

emotional comments that some of my students had raised with me before I declared

my intention to do this research. After researching this area to determine the survey

structure, I was led to another view about data collection and the methods to be used

(Feyerabend, 1993) which allowed me to broaden my perspective on what data could

be collected. I decided to give the widest possible invitation to those who had

undertaken the specific subject I had taught that dealt with teamwork as part of its

structure, and to be as open as possible with the data being returned.

All those who wanted to participate were sent an email to participate in the survey

(copy of email text sent at Appendix E). Then each participant would use a link in

the survey to connect to the web-based survey questionnaire I had set up. The

questions and responses would take only a few minutes to complete. Those who

wanted to could arrange for a further interview.

I was trying to achieve an analysis of what was appearing in the responses from the

web-based survey and the statements of the interviewed. Other writers on

interviewing (Milne, 1999; Pont, 1998), also took me to different viewpoints on the

questions and how the information should be drawn out. Open-ended questions as

well as specific data collection questions were finally chosen as the format for the

questions in the survey and the more wide ranging interview questions. I was also

interested in how the students would view the survey questionnaire so I also included

a question at the end of the survey asking for comments on any faults, or comments

about how the survey could be improved.



Presentation to UTS Academic Review Board September 2005.

As part of the Masters by Research program the work had to be presented to the

Academic Review Board when the work was fifty percent completed. The Academic

Review Board felt the initial survey proposed and the questions for the web-based

survey initially prepared were too widespread in its aims and requested that the

questions be focussed on teamwork and not on the actual cooperative nature of the

University of Technology, Sydney architecture course. From this review the number

of questions was reduced and the focus on teamwork was reinforced and any

questions on cooperative learning removed. The first trial web-based survey

questionnaire was undertaken by a recent graduate. Their suggestions about format

and wording were incorporated and the number of questions reduced. The web-

based survey questions were posted online using the University Survey Instrument

program and server with web access. An email was sent to all graduate members of

the architecture program from UTS and to the students who had kept their email

addresses current from the 2000 to 2005 cohorts.

Selection of participants

The research is aimed at those students who undertook study in a specific subject,

Professional Practice at their final year of study at the University. From the records

for the subject 449 students have taken part in this subject. The participants for the

research study were all members of the University of Technology, Sydney Alumni

Association who had graduated in architecture and who have submitted their email

addresses as a means of communication. All of these graduates were sent an email

twice calling for their participation via an online survey. Student cohorts from 2000

to 2004 who have kept their old email address current were also sent two email

invitations calling for their participation via an online survey. All those students who

chose to respond were used in this research study. Three graduates approached the

researcher directly to participate in the interviews and their data is included as the

last three interviews.



Methodological issues of this work

Some of the problems of the research study to date include identified problems by

the respondents with a specific question in the web-based survey. The open-ended

questions to the web survey were well received and more questions could have been

asked in this section.

In comparing the various methods of web-based survey data collection used in this

study - data questions, ranking questions and open ended questions - the latter

provided the most useful data. The web-based ranking question responses proved to

be the least satisfactory results though they did highlight the discrepancy between the

dates and the point of recall of the Belbin results. The survey instrument has a

limited amount of ranking responses that could be chosen from. Given the wide

variety of questions that ranking was called for, this led to some questions not being

appropriate for the chosen ranking device. A copy of the web-based survey

document is attached at Appendix G. The verbal telephone interviews led to a lot of

extraneous data that diverted attention from the central aim of the research which

proved to be expensive in resources and time expended. However the open nature of

the interview allowed results to emerge from the data via the words of those

surveyed rather than the preconceptions of the researcher. Two of the interviews

were interrupted or hurried. In future it would be better to hold interviews face to

face. The use of 'face to face' instead of phone interviews may have led to further

insights.

File: Masters 061101 Final, doc 11:30 PM- 1 November2006 Page 27 of 106

Learning Teamwork in Architecture 4. Results

4. Results

This research aimed to investigate learning about teamwork and what effects various

teaching elements had upon students over a period of time from 1994 until 2005 in a

specific subject area and undergraduate program. The program under this study is the

University of Technology, Sydney, Bachelor of Architecture Program which is a

professional degree leading to graduates becoming legally qualified to use the

expression 'Architect'. The course was populated with students with a wide variety of

ages and experiences. The course through this period was unique in requiring students

to be working in a professional architect's office. The office had to have a registered

architect and the student was required to complete their AACA logbook as part of a

separate subject assessment criteria (and if they wanted to apply for registration as an

architect).

A total of 449 students had studied this subject area between 1994 and 2005. The initial

email invitation was sent to 147 architecture graduates who were members of the

University of Technology, Sydney Alumni Association and 155 emails were sent to the

last recorded email addresses of all the graduates since January 2000 to April 2005 (a

copy of the letter is attached at Appendix E). A total of 302 emails were sent to UTS

architectural graduates to invite them to participate in the research.

The research is based on data collected from a survey conducted with a web-based

survey tool that graduates from the architecture program were invited to complete

online. The web-based survey consisted of 24 questions over three sections. The first

section, required yes/no or basic data responses such as email address, date and

registration as architect, in eight questions (Q1 - Q8). The second section required a

ranked response from 'Not Applicable' (NA) to 'Very Well' in 10 questions (Q9 - Q18).

The third section allowed the respondents to enter typed text responses to six open-

ended questions (Q19 - Q24). A copy of the web-based survey as it appeared to the

participants, is attached at Appendix H.



General web-based survey results

The web-based survey instrument required an email address for respondents to be able

to log on to the survey, though this could be removed after 'logging on' which three

respondents did. Overall there did not appear to be any data entries that were reckless

or completed as nuisance figures. 50 responses were recorded between the 28 June

2005 and 26 April 2006. Graduates could log on and edit their responses. Two

graduates logged on twice and repeated their responses with their responses closely

correlating both times. The two earlier incomplete responses from these graduates have

been excluded. This left 48 valid responses to the web-based survey.

A total of 34 (70%) used the open-ended questions (Q19 - Q24) in the survey to give

further information. All of the 48 (100%) respondents to the web-based survey were

working in architecture or an allied field. There were 15 female (32%) and 28 male

(57%) respondents. Five did not indicate gender. Overall, 48 graduates (16%) of 302

total emails sent, completed the online web-based survey giving 48 responses for the

web-based survey. 31 of the 48 participants answered all the questions (see Appendix

H for completed web-based survey data in spreadsheet format with identities removed

and arranged in historical order of Ql). The survey included an offer for a further

recorded interview and 11 out of the 48 (23%) participants elected to do this while three

others volunteered for a telephone interview without doing the web-based survey. From

the total of 449 students (from 1994 to 2005), 51 (11%) participated in the survey or

interview.

Initial results

Initially, the results from the web-based survey did not immediately appear to yield

interesting data. However after arranging the data into a spreadsheet and ranking each

of the answers themes did begin to emerge. When the answers to the open-ended

questions were listed and expanded and could be seen in context then other theories

about safety in learning (the ability to experiment rather than be concerned about

litigation), issues of justice and equity (loafing or carrying others) and different levels of

engagement (personal commitment) began to emerge.



General data section Q1 - Q8 from web-based survey

The participants were asked twice, Q2 and Q9, about teamwork. 17 participants

indicated that they were not taught or did not have teamwork as a specific subject and

12 stated categorically that teamwork was not taught. When the data is ranked by year

it appears that graduates from 1987 until 1998 do not recall Belbin or teamwork. From

1999 onwards, participants generally do recall teaching about teamwork and the Belbin

role models being taught.

Q 1 Last year of study

The wording of this question was carefully chosen. During the period with this research

is concerned (1994 until 2005), the subject area was taught either in the penultimate

(Year 5) or final year (Year 6) of the course. This was identified as a possible area of

confusion. However that the phrase the 'last year of study' would give a consistent

means of identifying all the cohorts of students during the relevant period. One survey

participant predated the period of time of the course being investigated, otherwise the

responses were spread over the period 1994 - 2004, with all years of final study

represented.

Q 2 Working in Architecture

In the web-based survey 100% of respondents were working in architecture or in an

allied field.

Q 3 Registration as architect

Have you become registered as an Architect?46 Responses -Yes - NoMean= 1.7, Standard Deviation = 0.46

1333

%28 1 %71 2

Figure 1 Q3 Have you become registered as an architect?

From the 48 completed surveys, 13 (27%) respondents had become registered architects

(five female) and 33 were still graduates.



Q 4 Studied elsewhere

11 out of 47 responses stated they had studied at another University, and three made

specific comments about the nature of the Architecture course at UTS. Given these

students' experiences at other universities this could not be further researched to see if

this other study had an impact on the data. Their comments in the open-ended questions

(Q19 to Q24) did not indicate any common issue about study at University of

Technology, Sydney, apart from a desire to study part-time.

Q 5 Recall teaching of teamwork or Belbin model

Out of 48 responses, 31 (65%) recalled teamwork teaching. From inspection of the 17

who answered 'No', eight of these indicated they would like to take the Belbin

evaluation report. This showed the amount of interest in knowing and learning about a

theoretical teamwork model.

Q 6 Repeat undertaking of Belbin BSPIP

While 16 of the 46 responses did not want to complete another Belbin report, and 30

were 'prepared' to undertake another Belbin report. The sample size was too small to

compare past and present counselling reports. This could be an area for further

research.

Q 7 Participate in further interview

Only 22 responses were received to this question, and 17 respondents indicated

willingness to complete an interview.

Q 8 Contact details for further interview

Of the 17 positive responses to Q7, 16 left their contact details. Each was invited by

email to participate in the interview. However two had left Australia before the

interviews could be conducted and four did not reply to the invitation leaving 11

candidates who had completed the web-based survey interviews.



Q9 - Q18 Ranking questions section

Ten questions invited respondents to rank the items from 'Not Applicable' (NA) to 'Very

Well' (Q9 - Q18). Four respondents elected not to complete this section and completed

the first and third sections only. This section was presented as a single page so the

entries could be entered quickly and easily down the page (see Appendix G). A total of

39 (81%) of 48 had responses ranging from 'Not at all' to 'Very well'. An internal check

that participants were reading and responding consistently, was done by having two

questions (Q9 and Q18) that required opposite responses.

Nil or not applicable (N/A) responses

Having the 'Not Applicable' scale would help identify those responses that wanted to

include responses to other sections but not in the ranking section. In the data collection

survey instrument these entries were separately recognised. The ten ranking questions

(Q9 - Q18) had five participants who selected the same responses indicating 'N/A' (Not

Applicable) for each of the questions. This group also included a response in the open-

ended questions indicating they did not recall teamwork. These were pre 1998

graduates. Their responses included:-

"There was no such course during my time at UTS"

"/ think that one learns to be pert of a team when working in a practice"

"there was no "teamwork" subjects between 1991 -1996"

"/ guess this survey would have been more useful if I studied Teamwork subject”

"1 found the survey difficult to fill out as I honestly don't remember learning teamwork at uni and now I'm keen to find out if my memory is bad or whether the subject was not taught"

Four out of 48 participants did not include or deleted their initial responses to all of the

ranked questions. However they entered and made data responses to questions, Q1 to

Q8.



Q 9 Teaching Teamwork effective

Was teaching in teamwork at UTS effective?Default Group (43 Responses)- NA 5 %11 0 ■- Not at all 1 %2 1 I- Partly 3 %6 2 i- Not sure 3 %6 3 i- Fairly well 19 %44 4- Very wellMean= 4.0, Standard Deviation = 0.99

12 %27 5

Figure 2 Q9 Was teaching in teamwork at UTS effective?

A total of 31 (71%) out of 41 of the respondents regarded teaching in teamwork as

effective. Such a strong response indicates strong recall by the respondents of the

teamwork subject, and their positive regard to the teamwork area.

Q 10 Teaching assist Teamwork

Did the teaching in teamwork assist you in your study at UTS?Default Group (46 Responses)- NA 5 %10 0 ■- Not at all 2 %4 2 i- Partly 4 %8 2 i- Not sure 9 %19 3 ■- Fairly well 18 %39 4- Very wellMear= 3.6, Standard Deviation^ 1.07

8 %17 5 ns

Figure 3 Q10 Did the teaching in teamwork assist you in your study at UTS?

A total of 26 (56%) of the respondents indicated that the teaching in teamwork assisted

them in their study at UTS. Two respondents were not able to see that teamwork

assisted their study at UTS. There were five respondents that would consistently

indicate NA in other questions in this section and had a "did not recall teamwork being

taught" response in question Q5.



Q 11 Teaching Teamwork assist workplace

Did the teaching in teamwork assist in your professional role in the workplace while you were studying?Default Group (46 Responses)- NA 5 %10 0 m- Not at all 3 %6 1 i- Partly 5 %10 2 ■« Not sure 11 %23 3 m- Fairly well 12 %26 4 ■■- Very wellMeans 3.5, Standard Deviations 1,21

10 %21 5

Figure 4 Qll Did the teaching in teamwork assist in your professional role in the workplace while

you were studying?

A total of 22 (47%) out of 46 responses were able to respond that the workplace role in

the architecture profession or allied field was assisted by teaching in teamwork at the

University.

Q 12 Workplace Teamwork helped study

Teamwork learnt at the Cooperative/part time workplace was beneficial to my study.Default Group (46 Responses)~ NA 6 %13 0 ■- Not at all 2 %4 1 i- Partly 3 %6 2 i* Not sure 2 %4 3 i- Fairly well 12 %26 4 BBB- Very wellMean= 4.2, Standard Deviations 1.15

21 %45 5

Figure 5 Q12 Teamwork learnt at the Cooperative/part time workplace was beneficial to my study.

A total of 33 (71%) responses were able to identify that teamwork at the workplace was

beneficial to their study. This was supported by the comments in the open-ended

questions.



Q 13 Learning Teamwork in workplace

Do you think learning about teamwork during the cooperative/part time workplace was the best way to learn this?Default Group (46 Responses)-NA 6 %13 0 ■- Not at all i. %2 1 i- Partly 2 %4 2 i- Not sure 5 %10 3 ■- Fairly well 19 %41 4- Very wellMean= 4.0, Standard Deviation^ 0.95

13 %28 5 BBB

Figure 6 Q13 Do you think learning about teamwork during the cooperative/part time workplace

was the best way to learn this?

A total of 32 (69%) respondents were able to identify that the workplace was a suitable

place to learn about teamwork.

Q 14 Allowing students to experiment

Did the teaching in teamwork at university allow you to adopt roles during teamwork study you were not able to do at the workplace?Default Group (46 Responses)- NA 9 %19 0 n- Not at all 3 %6 1 i» Partly 3 %6 2 i- Not sure 8 %17 3 H- Fairly well 8 %17 4 ■- Very wellMear = 3.8, Standard Deviation = 1.29

15 %32 5

Figure 7 Q14 Did the teaching in teamwork at university allow you to adopt roles during teamwork

study you were not able to do at the workplace?

A total of 23 (49%) noted that roles could be adopted during teamwork study at the

University. As elsewhere discussed in this research study, experiential learning allows

individuals to adopt different positions or roles to what they would normally adopt as

the risks and complications of real life situations do not allow experimentation whereas

the University does allow and encourage this to occur.



Q 15 Teamwork role in architecture

Do you think the teaching of teamwork allowed you to think about your future role in architecture?Default Group (46 Responses)- NA- Not at all- Partly- Not sure* Fairly well- Very wellMear= 3.7, Standard Deviation- 1.34

7 %1S 0 ■3 %6 I I7 %15 2 H4 %8 3 I:: %23 4 Hii4 %3o 5 ran

Figure 8 Q15 Do you think the teaching of teamwork allowed you to think about your future role in

architecture?

The teaching of teamwork was closely allied to the subject area where they were

learning about how architecture is actually practised. A total of 25 (54%) responses

identified that teamwork is part of architectural professional practice role.

Q 16 Utilisation of Teamwork

Kav« you been able to utilise what was taught at university in the teamwork subject/topic since you have graduated?Default Group (43 Responses)- NA- Not at all- Partly- Not sure- Fairly well- Very wellMean= 3.8, Standard Deviation 1.10

5244199

%11 0 %4 1 %9 2 %9 3 %44 4 %20 5

i■

Figure 9 Q16 Have you been able to utilise what was taught at university in the teamwork

subject/topic since you graduated?

A total of 28 responses (65%) were able to look back to their study and reflect that the

teamwork taught was utilised and applicable to their professional area. When asked

about the application of teamwork since graduation they were not so clear in their

response. Perhaps this was because a number of the students have not been in

teamwork environments. A total of 33 (67%) out of 49 respondents to the whole survey

had not gone on to become qualified as architects and were still in architectural roles

(100% claimed to be in architecture or allied industry at Q2) and perhaps were not using

teamwork, working as drafters or designers but not architects.



Q 17 Teamwork at University compared with after graduation

Was being taught teamwork at university better than learning teamwork at the workplace after graduation?Default Group (42 Responses)-NA 7 %16 0 ■- Not at all 6 %14 1 ■- Partly 4 %9 2 ■- Not sure 6 %14 3 ■- Fairly well 9 %21 4 m- Very wellMean= 3.4, Standard Deviation= 1.46

10 %23 5 m

Figure 10 Q17 Was being taught teamwork at university better than learning teamwork at the

workplace?

In conjunction with Q5, 19 (44%) responses of respondents were still clear that the

teaching of teamwork at the University was better than the workplace after graduation.

Q 18 Teamwork as waste of time

Do you think the teamwork subject/topic was a waste of time?Default Group (45 Responses)- NA 6 %13 0- Not at all 29 %64 1- Partly 2 %4 2- Not sure 5 %11 3*■ Fairly well 2 %4 4- Very well 1 %2 5Mear= 1.6, Standard Deviation = 1.07

Figure 11 Q18 Do you think the teamwork subject/topic was a waste of time?

This question requires an opposite response to the previous questions (Q10 to Q17).

This was a check to ensure that those who were just 'ticking all the boxes' would have to

stop and think if they wanted their earlier responses to not be negated. One individual

response did think that there was a 'teamwork topic' and that it was a waste of time or

they were ignoring the question and just selecting the final response for each question.

Clearly 31 (68%) of the 45 respondents felt that teaching and using of teamwork was

beneficial.

Q19 - Q24 Analysis of open questions section from web-based survey

After the initial data questions and ranking, there were also open-ended questions which

were included to obtain any other responses that were not covered by the earlier data



questions or ranking questions. This also allowed respondents to identify if there was

any key element or elements in common with regard to teamwork and to uncover any

lived experiences that the respondents may wish to share. A total of 34 (71%) out of 48

overall responses were recorded in this section of questions.

Q 19 Other ways of learning Teamwork

In what other ways did you learn about or had been taught Teamwork while

studying at UTS?

There were 33 responses out of 48 surveys completed that had specific responses

ranging from a few words to over 50 words discussing various paradigms of teaching.

There were ten responses who 'did not recall teamwork' from Q5 or had a N/A or

negative response. The other 23 responses discussed other subjects such as Urban

Studies or Design studios, which involved groups or teamwork. However none of the

23 responses referred to other subjects (or other universities) teaching teamwork in a

theoretical model. Eight of the responses mentioned friendship as a means of learning

about or in teamwork, with two of these mentioning specific social models, e.g.

"Developing friendships early in the course that meant I could work together on many assignments." (1997 Graduate web-based survey)

"extra-curricular activities: in my case, being involved in a architecture student organisation that mounted exhibitions, published a newsletter and ran talks". (1994 Architect web- based survey)

These other methods of learning about teamwork have not been researched in this study.

The other areas of academic activities such as University committees, sporting and

organising social events has not been studied but has had an impact on more than one

participant in this research study.

Three participants specifically mentioned negative experiences in the teamwork they

had participated in, e.g.

"taught that team work in an academic environment simply doesnt work. In any academic group task, 80% percent of the work will be done by 20% of the group (as Snr. Vilfredo Pareto will attest)" (2002 Graduate web-based survey)



"Often I found that team work was a process of depending less and less on other people as my expectation of what they could produce was whittled away by there own ineptitude". (2004 Graduate web-based survey)

Generally these respondents were aware of various personality profiles and methods of

ascertaining these using psychometric instruments.

Q 20 Positive or negative experiences of teamwork

Did you have any positive/negative teamwork experiences in your cooperative/part time workplace which affected your study or work?

There were 33 responses out of 48 surveys completed overall. A total of 18 of the

responses discussed and complimented the workplace and its contribution to the

education of the student. A total of 14 negative experiences were discussed that

highlighted unequal team membership using the expression 'less committed', and

'carrying' other team members, e.g.

7 was forced to join teams of less than committed students" (2003 Graduate web-based survey Q20)

"working with less able/commited students"(2003 Graduate web-based survey Q20)

"negative experiences as had to carry weaker student"(2002 Graduate web-based survey Q20)

"THE FEELING OF CARRYING OTHER TEAM MEMBERS" (1997 Graduate web-based survey Q20)

Several positive comments were discussed that mentioned the workplace and its effect

on student's education in architecture and professional practice and were using the

expression 'colleagues' e.g.

"Lunchtimes generally were spent doing my work/study and i had the opportunity to get feedback from collegues"(2003 Graduate web-based survey Q20)

"On many occasions I was able to go to senior work colleagues for advice on a variety of subjects". (1998 Architect web-based survey Q20)



This data was not enough to draw positive conclusions about the effect the learning

about teamwork had on the workplace. These words 'committed', 'carrying', and

'colleagues' were repeated in the recorded interviews taken later in the research study.

This repetition is a hallmark of the 'saturation' evident in grounded theory when the

emerging data is appearing.

Q 21 Learning Teamwork at University compared to workplace

What were the main pros and cons in your learning teamwork at University

compared with learning teamwork during work either while studying or aftergraduation?

A total of 33 responses out of 48 surveys were completed. Several responses discussed

the University as being a place where mistakes made in tasks associated with learning

did not have such significant impacts such as loss of a job, financial penalties or legal

problems. A total ofl5 out of the 35 responses indicated not having to worry about loss

as a positive aspect of teamwork at the University, e.g.

"if we failed at uni no body woould sue me” (2004 Graduate web-based survey Q21)

"experimatiation[sic], consequences where [sic] more personal that having ramifications on a company" (2002 Architect web-based survey Q21)

"mistakes didn't cost money! "(2001 Graduate web-based survey Q21)

"No real 'responsibility' at uni Mistakes had no repercussions" (2000 Graduate web-based survey Q21)

"Role-play can be very instructive, when it allows for experimentation and discovery not possible in practice"(2000 Graduate web-based survey Q21)

"we can test ideas without affecting any real projects/ clients". (1997 Graduate web-based survey Q21)

The respondents all acknowledged the learning at University, despite loss of marks, or

having to 'carry' other students, was an experimental and worthwhile place for

education. Data about social interaction as a part of learning at University appeared,

e.g.



"building great relationships with yur fellow students".[sic] (1997 Architect web-based survey Q21)

" Negatives at uni:- sometimes you formed a group based on friendship rather than compatibility of skills. However, Towards the end of the course i was lucky enough to form a group with friends who had strengths were i had weaknesses. Positives at uni:- Sometimes you were forced to work with an unbalanced team, and therefore forced to deal with difficult personalities, mimicking what often happens at work or on site etc. "[sic]. (2003 Architect web-based survey Q21)

This social interaction at the University level of education could be further researched.

Five of the responses made reference to the enjoyment of teamwork at University, e.g.

"team roleplaying at uni has the advantage of having an understaning of competitors tactics (after the game) whereas in the real world you can win or loose a competitive contest (say for a tender) without ever really knowing why. The spirit of play is also an importnant element in the uni context" [sic] (2000 Graduate web-based survey Q21)

"Positive teamwork experiences include getting the opportunity to work with fellow friends from university with amazing talents and skills", [sic] (2000 Graduate web-based survey Q21)

"the luxury of time to experiment with new methods" (2003 Graduate web-based survey Q21)

"a chance to dream, act out and imagine". (2004 Graduate web-based survey Q21)

Only two out of the 33 responses in this question mentioned 'carrying' or 'less

committed' students, e.g.

"Mostly negative. In several cases, to maintain my average mark, I ended up doing most of the work. By the end of the programme most students had worked out who the dud students were and so by a form of social or academic Darwinism duds ended up in grups together and teh more capable students tended to seek each other out for group work. In most cases, groupwork punishes the diligent and rewards the indolent. It also flattens the marks (or the bell curve) by spreading the marks amoungst a smaller number of students".[sic] (2002 Graduate web-based survey Q21)



Q 22 Improvements in teaching Teamwork

In what ways could the teaching of teamwork at University or in cooperative/part

time workplace be improved?

Four responses had a 'see previous answer' or 'N/A' entered. The remaining 29 written

responses were generally carefully considered scenarios or situations that could be

applied to teamwork teaching in a variety of places and subject areas, 'get onto a

building site', 'discover the real world', e.g.

"teamwork is the sort of thing that needs to be experienced rather than taught" (2004a Graduate web-based survey Q22)

"if we were actually building something or producing a publication". (2004b Graduate web-based survey Q22)

"Incorporation of real world: i.e. working on a fictionalproject with professionals you will normally deal with (consultants, builders, clients bringing their real world brains and balls to the table)" (2000 Graduate web-based survey Q22)

"get students on to a building site for six months perhaps even a year". (1997 Graduate web-based survey Q22)

Other responses also included, e.g.

"Perhaps ealier on in the course? then could have implemented it a little ealier on and had an undersatnding of how individuals behave / perform in groups".[sic] (1997 Architect web-based survey Q22)

"through repeating the exercises many times over the years so that the 'game' becomes familiar" (2000 Graduate web- based survey Q22)

"do it at different stages within the course ie as a 1st year fourth and sixth. As people evolve in their learning and experience so do the roles which they assume". (1999 Graduate web-based survey Q22)

"For group research and assignment submissions i would most recommend "random" groups, as a means of diversifying the mix of students Group size for should vary from 2-4. Larger groups takes up too much time to sort out the group dynamic when group assignemnts are required" [sic](1999 Architect web-based survey Q22)



"I have done some communications courses that dealt with the DISC system of profiling. Having a good understanding of what can drive personality types can assist in making teams work better together. It can also assist when assembling teams in the first place to ensure the right types of people are working together". (1998 Architect web-based survey Q22)

The social aspect appeared again in this question,

"The L4 cafe worked very well prior to going to classes as a place to meet and chat". (1996 Graduate web-based survey Q22)

The last quote reinforces the notion that the social aspect of education is a meaningful

part of the teaching and learning at University, even though it is in a social context the

respondent refers to it as "worked". Those who had completed a written response

carefully considered this question and several interesting and novel ideas were proposed

to improve teaching of teamwork.

Q 23 Comments on other subject areas

(General Issues) You may want to express your opinion about other subject areas

being relevant to your career and practice of Architecture. (You can also leave this

blank!)

There were 23 responses in this area. Out of 23 responses, six mentioned the workplace

as relevant to their career (A), six mentioned design (B), three mentioned professional

practice (C) and three were critical of the construction and engineering subjects (D), e.g.

A) "The workplace is a great forum for learning, through both observation and participation. UTS should never forget that". (2004 Graduate web-based survey Q23)

B) "i would like to see a better realtionship between support subjects and design to learn about the application of lighting in design, structural principles in an architectural sense, construction in terms of design and architectural character and the like".[sic] (1996 Graduate web-based survey Q23)

C) "Having just completed my registration in the UK - it has made me value the architects in law / practice subject immensely". (1999 Architect web-based survey Q23)



D) "I feel confident enought to write urban design controls, design a football stadium, run an architectural practice, but I shudder when I have to do details for a house alts and adds" [sic] (2001 Architect web-based survey Q23)

Given the wide range of responses this would be a suitable area for further research into

what should be taught at the University. Responses to this question did not include any

further discussion on teamwork or team roles or how these occurred in other subjects

(see Q19).

Q 24 Improvements to survey

Is there any way this survey could be improved? Are there any mistakes or unclear

questions or directions? (Please quote number and page of survey)

An earlier survey was trialled before this one was published on the web. Comments

were received concerning - simplification, putting the survey into three sections and

removal of repetitive questions - these were all adopted. Of 48 responses to the survey,

18 (38%) of these made a comment about the survey in the last question, seven (15%)

of which were critical of the format, questions and allowable responses, e.g.

"Your questions in this last section are often double loaded, and Im not sure I have answered them in a pointed and rational fashion", [sic] (2004 Graduate web-based survey Q24)

"The rankings on page 3 are unclear. I've interpreted them as being left to right/bad to good". (2000 Graduate web- based survey Q24)

"The multiple choice options do not make sense with all questions" (2002 Graduate web-based survey Q24)

"The choices in response didn't seem to reflect the question asked very well"(1999 Graduate web-based survey Q24)

"The categories (choices for ranking) on page 3 are a little awkward in terms of their fit to the questions" (1994 Architect web-based survey Q24)

"Some of the bullet points are difficult to relate to an answer of - fairly well, not at all, very well, etc... particulary 10. Do you think the teamwork subject/topic was a waste of time?(I found when skimming through quickly, if I agreed with the statement I'd tick to the right buttons, if I didn't I'd tick to the

Fite: Masters 061101 Final doc 11:30 PM -1 November 2006 Page 44 of 106


left. This statement was worded such that I had to do the opposite. I actually had to stop and think. (not too desirable when i'm in a hurry at work)", [sic] (2004 Graduate web- based survey Q24)

"i found the survey difficult to fill out as i honestly don't remember learning teamwork at uni and now i'm keen to find out if my memory is bad or whether the subject was not taught i'm sure that staff at [...] wish i remembered more of the subject.1” [sic] (1995 Architect web-based survey Q24)

The other 11 responses were neutral, positive or made some other form of comment

about the survey and three commented that they had not studied teamwork, e.g.

"pg3, q6-. Did the teaching in teamwork at university allow you to adopt roles during teamwork study you were not able to do at the workplace? - Maybe 'not required', 'not given the oppurtunity' to do at the work place", [sic] (2003 Graduate web-based survey Q24)

"Your last three questions where more pertinent than the others which related to Belpin. However before I sign off, I congratulate the initiate to do the survey, I greatly appreciate my UTS education and believe in co-operative education," [sic] (1997 Graduate web-based survey Q24)

"Survey is great - easy to fill out when on the web". (2001 Graduate web-based survey Q24)

"Perhaps the definition of team work, are we including assignments set as group assignments (my pet hate), or teamwork as a conceptual course in PP". (2002 Graduate web-based survey Q24)

"Not really"(2000 Graduate web-based survey Q24)

"Maybe it needs a bit more in the introduction about how teamwork was specifically taught in the course because 1 honestly find it a bit hard to remember the specifics. I may have been asleep at the time and for that I apologise". (1998 Graduate web-based survey Q24)

"Maybe a question like. What was the most valuable project / task you performed as part of course work. This can be any task, from any year, from any subject. Please explain the relevance of your choice. What was the specific lesson taught via this task. Why is this lesson valuable. Plotting the response to this type of question would provide

File: Masters 061101 Finai.doc 11:30 PM - 1 November 2006 Page 45 of 106


useful feedback that could assist in course structure". (1996 Graduate web-based survey Q24)

"It seems fine" (2000a Graduate web-based survey Q24)

"I hope I haven't misunderstood the questions above -1 read the word "teamwork" in a general sense" (2000b Graduate web-based survey Q24)

"I couldn't answer any of the main questions as i couldn't remember exactly the specific course that we did at uni".[sic] (2000c Graduate web-based survey Q24)

"I guess this survey would have been more usefull if I studied Teamwork subject"[sic] (1997 Architect web-based survey Q24)

These comments are noted for future research and any other study to be undertaken.

Recorded interviews

A checklist of questions and a preliminary outline for the interview was prepared so the

interviewer could have a projected path for the interview. Each of the graduates who

had responded in the positive to a further interview in the web-based survey were

telephoned and appointments made for an interview or the interview was conducted

immediately. Most interviews took about 10-15 minutes. The interviews were recorded

on a tape recorder connected to the telephone. Each interview began with a statement

about the purpose and acknowledgment of the use of data and the interview commenced

generally with the question "What do you think about teamwork in architecture?" by the

interviewer.

Most interviews were conducted as a series of questions and answers, one interview was

interrupted by another phone call to the participant. One interview has a small portion

of text missing while the tape was 'turned over'. All of the 14 interviews were typed out

by experienced transcription typists into text format files and then coded by the

researcher in HyperResearch and coloured markers on printouts.



Interviews

Each telephone interview has been listed here with a response from the web-based

survey followed by extracts from the interview (to verify the online results). The

interview began with a loose question approach, welcoming and thanking the

participant, then stating the purpose of the interview and requesting permission to

continue. A guided response technique was then used inviting elaboration on teamwork

teaching and application in the workplace before and after graduation. If the participant

answered with a question or a response that was not in line with the projected pathway

then the interview continued until it could be brought back on. The interview began

with the question by the researcher,

Do you think teamwork is important for architects? It was hoped the research would

find correlation with online survey results.

Typical questions

Do you think teamwork can be taught at University? This would confirm the previous

answer and it was also hoped the research would correlate with the web-based survey

results.

Did you recall the Lectures on Teamwork and Belbin Role models? One of the aims

of the research study would be to find references to the 'taught' teamwork model from

the University teaching. This question would find teams described in terms of

personalities, roles, and function. If they did not recall the lectures on teamwork the

researcher would prompt the participant with a similar question, "Do you recall the

marketing and the team formation exercise?"

What other kinds of teamwork at UTS did you do while studying? It was hoped the

research would find other formal and informal teamwork experiences. This generated a

lot of responses in the open-ended questions from the web-based survey.

What kinds of teamwork did you do at the workplace at the time of study? It was

hoped the research would find reflection of their lived experiences before they were

taught teamwork. Generally apart from shared work the replies to this question did not

provide any more lived experiences.

What teamwork are you doing now at the workplace? It was hoped the research would

find descriptions of teamwork in Belbin terms or role models and types. Most of the

replies to this question became long and involved complex descriptions of the

workplace. Only some of the replies used Belbin expressions and Belbin role models.



Have you had any further training in Teamwork, since you graduated? It was hoped

the research would find other teamwork influences and what impact they had. None of

the interviewed referred to any further teamwork training other than a single reference

to training in the workplace being better resourced.

Did you have any other comments about teamwork, study and work at University? It

was hoped the research would find any other matter arising from the above questions

not covered already. Generally this prompted a response about cooperative learning, or

problems with working part time.

The phone interviews and transcription was resource demanding and the interview

would often be distracted by diversions from the expected pathway by the nature of the

responses and questions. However the interview was useful to capture the lived

experiences and gather emotional responses to the questions being asked.

Analysis of interviews

What I was looking for were comments from the respondents about what aspects of

teaching in teamwork at University of Technology, Sydney were helpful both during

part-time work and about teamwork in architecture after graduation. The respondents

were encouraged to give actual examples of real life situations that could be used in a

grounded theory analysis to show specific elements of teamwork that were taught or

could be taught. Of interest in the open question responses is the comment that

teamwork was an outcome of work in a variety of subject areas and that most

experiences by students were negative when there was not a focus on the teamwork

aspect of the teaching. The teamwork experience was seen as a side path during study

but was seen as a critical skill in the student's later professional career. Any survey of

teamwork is not able to take into account previous widely variable experiences in team

roles. It is also not able to list all the variable factors that could affect team roles such

as disability, physical health, location, other members of teams, setting up of teams and

any of the other factors that could impinge on teamwork during study at the University

level. It was hoped any of these factors could be discovered and their effect noted.

%



Web-based survey data correlated with interview data

Each of the interviews are listed below in date order of the last year of study as

indicated by their response to the survey (Ql) or by a question in the interview. Each

interview has an extract from the web-based survey and an extract from the open-ended

questions to demonstrate the correlation of the data and show other items emerging

from the data.

1. Interview #10 Architect 1994

From the web-based survey this respondent had not recalled teaching in teamwork at Q5

and would like to do the Belbin report at Q6. This respondent generally noted in 4 and

5's for the ranking questions. This respondent was part of the student cohort that I had

begun teaching with at University of Technology, Sydney in 1994, and their response to

the general question Q24 was,

"The UTS Architecture course as I experienced it was highly relevant in every respect to my career and practice of Architecture thus far". (1994 ARCHITECT web-based survey)

During the phone interview they confirmed their web-based survey statements,

Interviewer: do you remember any specific lecture on teamwork at all?101 NT ARCHITECT 1994 F: Not specific, I mean just generally within that

project that went over a whole term, a whole semester, and I seem to remember there were a number of lectures there, but nothing in particular. I mean it was some years ago now.

Interviewer: And since you’ve been practicing as an architect have youbeen applying those same skills that you learnt at that particular time?

10INT ARCHITECT 1994 F: Yeah, I actually think that that was probably one of the most stand out - in terms of practice that was a really excellent project um, in terms of directly applicable experience.

Interviewer: And in that experience do you recall doing a thing called theBelbin profile?

10 INT ARCHITECT 1994 F: No, not really.Interviewer: It was a psychometric test, like a personality test.10 INT ARCHITECT 1994 F: Oh okay.Interviewer: And then you were given a counselling report, you may or

may not have done it.

File: Masters 061101 Final doc 11:30 PM - 1 November 2006 Page 49 of 106


10 INT ARCHITECT 1994 F: No, I don’t think I’ve done it - I have heard of them since in job interviews and stuff but no, I don’t remember them at uni.

The participant did not recall the teaching of teamwork or the teamwork theories,

though they did remember the associated exercise and how "it was one of the

most...standout...directly applicable experience" which reinforces the impact of

experiential learning.

2. Interview #8 Architect 1996 male

From the web-based survey this respondent did not recall teaching of teamwork at Q5

and would like to do the Belbin report at Q6, they answered 'Not sure' or 'N/A' to all

ranking questions Q9 - Q18 and responded to Q19,

"/ do not recall formal teaching on teamwork. I am aware of patricular tests and studies that deal with personality traits, workplace, team work. I am unsure as to how valid these sorts of assessments may be"

During the phone interview,

INTERVIEWER: Do you recall in that last couple of years of study in professional practice, you were taken through some routines of setting up a company and then doing a presentation?

8 INT ARCHITECT 1996 M: Yes I do remember that specifically. That was agood exercise -1 enjoyed it.

INTERVIEWER: And in that process at that time you would have been introduced to the various stages of teamwork and given a psychometric instrument the Belbin survey. Do you remember that at all?

8 INT ARCHITECT 1996 M: No I don’t and I was thinking that may havebeen what I should have remembered but no unfortunately, [....], I don’t.

The participant did not recall the teaching of teamwork or the teamwork theories,

although they did remember the associated exercises delivered as part of the teaching of

teamwork and commented upon their enjoyment of it, "was a good exercise -1 enjoyed

it". The response would indicate a higher level of involvement with the learning as

discussed earlier.




From the web-based survey this respondent entered 'N/A' for all ranking questions and

'No' to Q5 on recall of teamwork teaching. Their response to Q19 (other ways of

learning teamwork) was,

"/ guess this survey would have been more useful if I studied Teamwork subject"

However during the phone interview,

Interviewer: Do you recall the teamwork exercise we did in year fivewhere you set up a team to do a marketing presentation?

14 Architect 1997 M: Yes actually, the teamwork assignment as part of theuniversity, which most of the people hated actually...

Interviewer: [Laughs]14 Architect 1997 M: ...because there’d normally be a team of three or four

people and two of those would just ride on the work of the others.

Interviewer: Yeah.14 Architect 1997 M: And the others that were doing all the work would hate

the other two and the whole process. But there were quite a few teamwork projects which I think actually have taught some people to take leadership, some people to basically be part of the team, some people just do nothing- but whoever does nothing obviously gains nothing as well.

Interviewer: That’s right.14 Architect 1997 M: But yeah, it was indirectly, I suppose, taught by forcing

people to do the group assignments, yes.Interviewer: Yeah. That, that, um- that also, that marketing presentation

was accompanied by a lecture that I gave on the Belbin role- models and how they exist in teamwork. Do you recall such a lecture?

14 Architect 1997 M: I do now vaguely, since you mentioned. Yeah.Interviewer: And I gave you a Belbin questionnaire, ‘self-inventory

profile’ it’s called. Would you be interested in doing such a test again?

14 Architect 1997 M: Not really frankly, not at the moment and frankly, Ican’t remember exactly what was in the test.

The participant did recall and was able to elaborate on theories of teamwork and team

roles though they were not able to specifically recall the Belbin model or team role

models. They related their negative experiences on teamwork. Their statement about

"taught some people to take leadership" is about 'accidental' learning as leadership was

not covered in the Belbin model or team typology or in any of the material covered with

students in this subject. This participant had indicated 1997 as their year of final study,

however records show they were studying the subject area in 1998 when records show



they had completed the BSPIP Counselling Report as part of their teamwork in the

subject.

4. Interview #3 Architect 1998 female

From the web-based survey this respondent did not recall teaching in teamwork at Q5 or

the Belbin report and did not think the University allowed experimentation at Q14, and

from the open question Q23 (General Issues), would try to enjoy study more,

"The UTS course is not easy, it is hard work but can be rewarding. If I was to do it again I think I would try to enjoy it more!"

During the phone interview the participant still could not remember the teamwork

teaching but could recall the actual subject area and content,

Interviewer: Do you recall a formal method of being taught under theheading of Belbin, out of a Belbin exercise in year 5?

3 Int Architect 1998 F I really can’t remember, I am really embarrassed but I really can’t remember.

Interviewer: No, it is okay, part of a marketing subject.3 Int Architect 1998 F Yeah 1 remember the marketing subject and I

remember us doing all the marketing work that we did all the assignments and stuff that we did, I have some vague recollection but I can’t remember exactly what it was (laughs).

Interviewer: Was there any other experiences of teamwork being taught atuniversity?

3 Int Architect 1998 F Well I guess more informally than formally during quite a few of the subjects you had to do quite a few things quite as a group anyway and 1 think the nature of the course I don’t think that anyone could do it totally isolated from anyone else and the amount of work and the type of work that is required and because everyone is working in practises everyone has access to different information and it really helps if you do work as teams rather than individuals but that is not a formal, you know, this is team work that is more that way than you do it because that is what you have to do to meet the requirements.

Interviewer: Do you feel that you had a chance to experiment withteamwork at university?

3 Int Architect 1998 F Yeah, I think so, I think so, there are some teams that I worked better with than others and sometimes when you wanted to stab people to death with a spoon but I guess how life is and on some occasions you get to work with a team that gets to work well together and other times".

File: Masters 061101 Final, doc 11:30 PM -1 November 2006 Page 52 of 106


The teaching of teamwork did not have an impact that could be recalled, even after the

prompting of the survey and by the interviewer. At this time the amount of workload

the student had to perform in the subject was large and ill defined. They also defined

the assignment as "did all the assignments and stuff we did". They were saying how the

workload and not the teamwork was the main point of the assignment.

5. Interview #11 Graduate 1999 female

This respondent appeared to have their first entry to the web-based survey interrupted

and repeated their responses which closely correlated. The initial entry was excluded as

a 'trial'. They recalled teamwork at Q5 and wanted to do the Belbin report again at Q6.

They answered 'N/A' at Q14 and Q17, indicating they were unsure about the contrast

between teamwork in the university versus team at the workplace and at Q22 (About

improvements to teaching teamwork) stated,

"Perhaps do it at different stages within the course ie as a 1st year fourth and sixth. As people evolve in their learning and experience so do the roles which they assume."

However during the phone interview,

Interviewer: Do you recall being taught teamwork in a formal way atUTS, around that Belbin model?

11 INT GRADUATE 1999 F: Yeah, that’s when we had the - that was thatbuilding - that, um...

Interviewer: Marketing exercise.11 INT GRADUATE 1999 F: Marketing exercise, yeah, where we had that

business.Interviewer: Yeah.11 INT GRADUATE 1999 F: We were some amazing multi-disciplinary

international type company.Interviewer: Instantly overnight, isn ’t that wonderful. Um, do you - would

you like to reflect on those experiences just for a couple of sentences and just tell me a little bit about it?

11 INT GRADUATE 1999 F: Um, I guess that was where it sort of reinforcedyour abilities or your strengths, you know, what you were good at, and sort of helped - I mean, for me, it sort of helped with organizational skills, because you were working with someone, so you had a team to meet, you had deadlines to meet within a team, so it wasn’t your own goals that you had to set, it was the team goals.


roles but focussed on abilities and outcomes, not team roles or typologies. From this



period onwards in the teaching of this subject the learning resources included detailed

case study material that prevented (or tried to prevent) "amazing multi-disciplinary

international type company" being formed and to allow the students at the University to

focus more on the teamwork.

6. Interview #13 Graduate 1999 male

This participant did not complete the web-based survey, and agreed to interview after

being approached by the researcher,

INTERVIEWER: "...the formal teaching of teamwork, do you recall that?13 INT GRADUATE 1999 M: I do.INTERVIEWER: And do you think that that was...13 INT GRADUATE 1999 M: Essential, absolutely.INTERVIEWER: And in those experiences of teamwork, did you have any

positive or negative experiences?13 INT GRADUATE 1999 M: If my memory serves me well, I did it

with a couple of students that I didn ’t get on with at that stage during university very well, though we talked, but I think the scenarios were set up so we had to do that, so that sort of tested I guess, the scenarios, if we had to do scenarios, that kind of put us in a position where...

INTERVIEWER: You had to make the best of it.13 INT GRADUATE 1999 M: We had to work as a team to get things

done, particularly when we had to set up a business, you know, and that sort of stuff, when you’ve all got to come up with names for the business and come up with a marketing strategy and all that kind of stuff and you’ve really all got to work as a team to get it though, I mean, I think what it does is it teaches you that it doesn’t matter who you’re working with, whether you like them or not, when you’ve got something you’ve got to do, you’ve just got to put everything else, your ego aside and just get on with it."


roles. This recall indicates all the additional material given to the students and what

they had to do was "come up with names for the business and come up with a marketing

strategy". This kept the student work focussed on the teamwork, which the above

graduate goes on to state in the last quoted sentence even though they do not

specifically recall the Belbin role model.




From the web-based survey this respondent recalled teamwork Q2, generally responded

in the 3, 4, and 5 for ranking questions and had positive comments in the open ended

questions,

"Even bad experiences (then and since) have been beneficial as lessons are always there".

During the phone interview the subject recalled the teaching of teamwork and the

Belbin report,

Interviewer: "...do you recall being taught teamwork in a formal methodat UTS?

1 Architect 2000: Yes.Interviewer: And for example was it the Belbin exercise that you recall?1 Architect 2000: Yes"

8. Interview #4 Architect 2000 female

Did not complete the web-based survey, volunteered to do interview when approached

by researcher. During the phone interview,

Interviewer: "...In year five, you were part of a Belbin exercise inmarketing, where you formed a team and set up a company.

4 Int Architect 2000 F Oh yes.Interviewer: Do you recall that?4 Int Architect 2000 F Yes I do.Interviewer: Did that experience of teamwork inform or teach you

anything about teams or give you any insight into working in teams?

4 Int Architect 2000 F Stay out of them as much a possible but if you have to be involved in one make sure you are the head of the team, basically I think that is it. I think teams are great as long as they are a team of one or I am in charge of it. One of the two, I mean, and that is a personal thing. I think I said earlier in the conversation that it depends on the personality of the people. Some people like to be told what to do. I am not one of those people. So and I totally understand that I don’t know everything and I need to work in a team but they need to be, from my point of view, well organised, well focused, doing what they are meant to do, not sort of sitting around having gab fests and I think, yeah, and getting back to your question about university, I don’t think it was taken as seriously that exercise as it could have potentially been taken. I think one of the reasons for that is that we were actually putting together some graphics and so forth and people did tend to get more involved in putting together the



graphics than they did than getting the meat into the sandwich, if you know what I mean"

Without the prompting of a survey being completed beforehand the participant was

recalling the event and, through their own words, is identifying the various roles and

strategies that were the focus of the teaching of teamwork in the subject area.


From the web-based survey this respondent indicated they recalled teamwork at Q5 and

wanted to do another Belbin report Q6. They generally responded in 4 and 5's for the

ranking questions except for Q17 where the workplace was seen as the best place for

learning teamwork but in Q18, did think the teaching in teamwork was worthwhile.

They had studied at another university before completing their study at UTS. Their

response to the open-ended question Q19,

"you learn how to work together - and how to deal with people of different personality types"

During the phone interview they confirmed their response to Q5,

Interviewer: "For instance, do you recall being taught teamwork in aformal method with the Belbin exercise in year 5?

5 Int Architect 2000 M Yep I remember doing that and I remember kind of this task where we were given kind of positions in roles based the outcomes of that.

Interviewer: What is your reflection upon that now some years hence.. .tothink back on that?

5 Int Architect 2000 M We still quite often, when we are going to meet up as a group, that study still quite often comes up in conversation of what our role was picked out on that and I guess a lot of those studies really, you have to do them a couple of times to get a true picture of who you are because a lot of it can depend of how you are feel on the day and what you have been doing over that immediate kind of week but I think it actually helps understand, like if you had not actually thought about that before or thought about the different positions that a person can play in a team I think it can help give you some insight into that because I think a lot, particularly in the earlier years a lot of architecture studies very much, it is all about me, me, me kind of it is about your ideas and development and your ideas and realising your kind of project where as this puts in the context of you are one person in a large team and in a team people need to have roles and they need to find a team, and I found this employing people as well, when you are employing, when you

Fite: Masters 061101 Final, doc 11:30 PM - 1 November 2006 Page 56 of 106


are putting an office together you need to make sure you have people that complement each other, you don’t want everybody who have the same skills so I think that side of it, it is almost the psychology of the office, the psychology of how people work and I think in that way that is incredibly useful".

This participant was in the same class as the participant in Interview 4, and could recall

the specific teamwork and task exercises on team roles and types. They also went on to

discuss other attributes of teamwork involving friendship and inclusion and have

developed and demonstrate an advanced level of understanding of teamwork and a

theoretical framework being applied.


This respondent had studied overseas before completing their degree at UTS. This

respondent had attempted the web-based survey once and then logged on again and

repeated their web-based survey entries. There was a strong correlation between the

two sets and the earlier set (which had no comments in the open ended questions Q19 -

Q24) was excluded from the results as being a 'trial' entry on their behalf. The

respondent had indicated they recalled teaching of teamwork at Q5 and would like to

repeat the Belbin report at Q6. This respondent generally responded in 4 and 5's for the

ranking questions and responded to Q19,

"By studying at UTS we had the experience to 'be in' the meetings not just recipient of feedback."

During the phone interview they confirmed their experience of teamwork,

Interviewer: Do you recall being taught teamwork at university?9 INT ARCHITECT 2002 M: Yeah.Interviewer: In what way?9 INT ARCHITECT 2002 M: I forgot the name of the survey that

happened -Interviewer: The Belbin survey?9 INT ARCHITECT 2002 M: That’s it, the Belbin one. Um, we put it

into a mix of groups depending on our strengths and weaknesses, or our characteristics I should say. That particularly.

Interviewer: Do you recall that as being something that you still usetoday?

9 INT ARCHITECT 2002 M: Um, I mean things I learnt fromworking with teams, yeah. I’m saying the Belbin exercise itself I’ve not used.

File: Masters 061101 Final, doc 11:30 PM - 1 November 2006 Page 57 oi 106


Interviewer: Oh right.9 INT ARCHITECT 2002 M: I mean quite often you find that teams,

um, even if you’ve worked with a company before you may not have worked with that personnel, your experiences - you use your experiences from - people experience and it’s not always the same second time around.

Interviewer: Yeah, sure, sure. The objectives of Belbin were many andvaried. What um - in your experiences of learning about teamwork and Belbin, do you have any positive or negative experiences you could relate back to me?

9 INT ARCHITECT 2002 M: Oh both. Um — I suppose they’re bothintertwined. In teamwork if someone’s not pulling their weight that’s always the problem, and it’s trying to get them to pull the weight, so that’s the endeavour in itself. Um - I think the successful part is when you get them to do that. The frustrating part is when it doesn’t happen and you’re let down. Wasn’t particularly the Belbin exercise, but other team projects, say from a design point of view, um, it happened as well.


roles. They were applying their Belbin team role framework to other subjects at the

University, not specifically the BSPIP. They were able to apply the framework to the

workplace as well.


From the web-based survey this respondent recalled teaching of teamwork at Q5 and

generally responded in 4 and 5's for the ranking questions except for Q15 where they

were not sure about the role of teaching teamwork in architecture, and had made no

responses to open ended questions and was impatient to complete the telephone

interview. During the phone interview,

INTERVIEWER: "do you recall being taught teamwork?6 INT GRADUATE 2003 M Look when you are talking about teamwork are

you specifically talking about a subject or just generally, you know, in a professional practice stream or stuff we did with Belbin, or what...?

INTERVIEWER: Well, in a sense that somebody, not necessarily me, but somebody stood up and said ‘okay, this is how you form a team, this is what the team should do and it is the outcome for the teamwork’ so they said this formal teaching about teamwork.

6 INT GRADUATE 2003 M Well, I guess...no, it probably wasn’t formally done in that way, but there were lots of other little things that

Fite: Masters 061101 Final.doc 11:30 PM - 1 November 2006 Page 58 of 106


were done, that were probably, you know, in total gave that impression.

INTERVIEWER: Sure, and that...so you are saying that you don’t recall it actually being taught specifically in the subject area?

6 INT GRADUATE 2003 M Well, look I think it sort of meshed in with awhole lot of other subjects, for example, design would have had a number of occasions where we worked in a group and there was certain outcomes that we do as part of a group effort and you know, there was delegation in the group that was directed from outside, from lecturers, and then, and then there was a certain amount of internal delegation that was done, you have to work out how to get this team dynamic working, so yeah, it was not specifically taught as a subject but I think it is an important part of Design and Environmental Science. I think it had an element of that and then Urban Science certainly had a very big stream of that and then professional practice had that as well."

Even though they had initially identified teamwork as being taught in the web-based

survey, and recalled the actual name and teaching event, they go on to question and see

the teaching of teamwork as being from other subject areas.


From the web-based survey this respondent did not complete all the data questions Ql-

Q8 but did indicate the recall of the teaching of teamwork and Belbin report at Q5, but

did not want to repeat the Belbin report at Q6. The respondent did not complete the

ranking questions and only provided minimal information and no response to open

ended questions. The participant was very willing to elaborate during the telephone

interview. During the phone interview the respondent confirmed the recall of teaching of teamwork:

INTERVIEWER: "do you recall in the final years of study in the subject Professional Practice, formally studying teamwork?

7 INT GRADUATE 2003 M: Yeah we did a bit. Those personality surveythings we did. Yep.

INTERVIEWER: And did any of those - any of that part of the teaching stay with you at all?

7 INT GRADUATE 2003 M: Uh, only that the survey said I should becomean architect.

INTERVIEWER: Just as well it didn’t say plumber.7 INT GRADUATE 2003 M: Yeah, a bit, just in terms of how you - whether

you’re the person who just gets in and works, or the goal setter, overseer sort of person. But that - those roles aren’t so clearly defined because there are times when you’re



overseeing someone and there are times when you’re being the worker bee.

INTERVIEWER: Do you remember the points being made in those teamwork exercises?

7 INT GRADUATE 2003 M: There are the categories that they set up were -goal setters, idea’s people, there were those who would just work until it was done".

The graduate participant did recall and was able to elaborate on theories of teamwork

and team roles. Given the elaborate responses I believe the participant found the web

site either difficult or boring or thought it would be easier to do an interview.


From the web-based survey this respondent did recall teaching in teamwork and the

Belbin report in Q2 and generally responded in 4 and 5's for the ranking questions

except for Q17 where the workplace was seen as the best place for learning teamwork

and in Q18, did think the teaching in teamwork was worthwhile. Their response to Q23

(General issues) was,

"The workplace is a great forum for learning, through both observation and participation. UTS should never forget that!"


Interviewer: Do you recall any particular project that you did that wasidentified as teamwork and you are taught teamwork to accomplish that particular goal?

2 Graduate 2004: Well, the only thing that was specifically taught as wellas it when it occurred would be that last semester, the last year where we got together as a pretend firm.

Interviewer: Yep.2 Graduate 2004: And that was that series of projects that we did as a

team and that which were related back to the Belbin stuff that you were showing stuff, so that would be the first one, well the main one that comes to mind".

This participant recalled both the team role-plays and the Belbin model.




Did not complete web-based survey. However they stated they had tried to complete

the survey but had been unable to complete the survey and had abandoned the attempt.


INTERVIEWER: "Do you remember being taught being taught formally at UTS about teamwork?

12 INT GRADUATE 2005 M: Yes, in Professional Practice.INTERVIEWER: Ah, and do y ou recall the Belbin Exercise in year five?12 INT GRADUATE 2005 M: Yes I do.INTERVIEWER: And what were your experiences of that exercise in teaching?12 INT GRADUATE 2005 M: It was really interesting because it gave in

depth knowledge of how the individual performance, in relation to their skills and advantages, so it was quite an open experience".


roles.

Learning about Teamwork and Belbin role models

From the 14 interviews and the 48 web-based surveys the data does not reveal any recall

of teaching teamwork other than accidental learning or Belbin team role type models

before 1998. The first acknowledgement appears in the web-based survey and

interviews of teaching of teamwork and Belbin team role type models in the year 1998

and consistently appears from 1999.

Experiential learning is a powerful way of teaching interactive skills. These lived and

remembered experiences, recalled during the interviews, were repeated in the manner

described by Glaser (1967) as indicative of the impact of the teaching. While not

specifically remembered as a pivotal event, those who recalled the effectiveness and the

impact of the knowledge arising from the learning event rather than the actual name or

title of the theory being taught.



Results overall

The students were in the final years of their architecture degree when the subject was

undertaken. The degree took six years of undergraduate study for the cohorts under this

research study until 2004 when the course was changed. The students would be

considered as adult students rather than undergraduate or those without life experiences.

These students also have a wide range of work experiences as a group. Individually

some respondents in the study would comment upon how their career, up until the time

of the teamwork exercise, had been a work experience with a team, but had not really

thought about teamwork in a theoretical construct or model that the student could think

about, e.g.

"The nature of the UTS course when I attended required students to work as part of teams. There is no way that one could complete this course without" (1998 Architect)

"working together Teamwork roles assumed at university could be varied and didactic. Roleplay can be very instructive, when it allows for experimentation and discovery not possible in practice". (2000 Graduate)

"I was working at a place where learning as important and they really fostered my development both at work and kind of encouraged, were interested at what I was doing at uni, but I know from hearing stories a lot of other people when they went into, the offices they worked at they were just treated kind of like drafting jockeys and kind of just stuck in the corner for their four days a week and doing bathroom details day in and day out". (2000 Architect Interview)

"Learning teamwork at university gave a playground whereby we can test ideas without affecting any real projects/ clients" (1997 Graduate)

During the interviews I tried to put myself into the place of the student. By adopting

this stance I was trying to remove any potential influence over the response the student

was making (Crotty, 1996). By calling my current meanings of teamwork into question

and not taking what the students were saying for granted and engaging in a meaningful

dialogue with them, the teamwork ideas began to be found, engaged and explored,

Researcher; "Do you recall any particular project that you did that was identified as teamwork and you are taught team work to accomplish that particular goal?



2004 Graduate B: Well, the only thing that was specifically taught as wellas it when it occurred would be that last semester, last year where we got together as a pretend firm.

Researcher; Yep.2004 Graduate B: And that was that series of projects that we did as a

team and that which were related back to the Belbin stuff that you were showing stuff, so that would be the first one, well the main one that comes to mind.

Researcher; And did you have any positive or negative experiences in this teamwork environment?

2004 Graduate B: It was very positive in our particular case. It wasn’treally any negative side to it, partly because we got along well and work together well" (2004 Graduate)

The material that was coded from the web-based survey and the subsequent interviews

comprised the responses about studying teamwork. The interview questions were about

how teamwork was taught and what impact it had on the students. In addition they were

given the opportunity to repeat the BSPIP to compare with their earlier results. A

proportion of the respondents elected to redo the Belbin study and this will be carried

out after this research is completed.

Some of those who responded in the web-based survey noted that they recalled the

Belbin team model then in the interview used the terminology of Belbin and its

application when they were responding and recalling their past studies and teamwork.

From this repetition we can see emerging the positive effect the Belbin team role

models and teamwork had and that it creates knowledge, information and application in

the mind of the student that comes up in later professional application. However as the

data has shown, no two people have identical experiences, much less identical

responses, to the teamwork inventory. While the student was studying they were asked

to interact through the Belbin method that gave them skills that were put into a context

so the student could apply them promptly and develop their knowledge without mortal

fear of consequence. It was, after all, a make-believe situation, the consequences of

which would not be as serious as being fired or loss of money or job. From this the

students have multiple constructed perceptions of teamwork despite being given a strict

framework to act within. Several respondents saw teams in terms of friendship

(accidental teamwork with lived experiences from friends and in other subjects without

teaching in teamwork skills). Others were able to see teams and teamwork as a taught



experience using expressions given to them during the teaching of the subject (learned

teamwork).

The researcher (myself) was not independent from the processes. Indeed I was the

principal one who instructed the students on teamwork. By teaching the subject I not

only informed the students, I was also informing myself. The roles of student and

teacher were interdependent. The teacher really learns a subject when they have to

teach a subject (Moon, 2004).

Gender issues

"negative teamwork experiences involved dealing with gender based issues in a male dominated industry" (2000 Graduate 19)

This student was seeing a problem with a team that they had selected. They were not

seeing roles or roleplay as being a self-learning exercise as they were seeing the issue of

gender. Otherwise the issue of gender roles and work within teams was not seen as a

significant issue to be raised in the overall survey or interviews. The architecture

profession is dominated by males. This gender difference was not mentioned by the

respondents other than the reference above.

Adult education compared to other forms of education

Adult Learning is a focus in the university setting. The students in their interviews each

made comments about their learning places and how they framed their learning

experiences in a wide variety of ways. These places were both the University setting

and the workplace. The teamwork was an activity that they could immediately apply

what was taught in a real setting as well as in a theoretical frame at the University. This

dual approach to learning was powerful. Some years later the students, now practicing

architects, are able to recall specific events relating to the subject over time from their

study periods and what lessons they had learnt from them.



Teamwork in higher & adult education

The guides for teaching teamwork in higher education (Federman & Hurd, 2000) were

useful in developing the methods I used, and to add to the material I was using in the

lectures. In discussing the knowledge about teamwork, Moon (1999, 2004) discussed

several authors and how they have dealt with 'knowledge'. This has given me new

insight into how to think about teamwork. The five epistemological perspectives by

Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger and Tarule (1986) as quoted by Moon pp34 to pp35

(2004), are,

Silence (incapable of having a voice),

Received (could only receive and process knowledge),

Subjective (knowledge was intuited),

Procedural (knowledge could be applied), and

Constructed (where students could relate knowledge to context).

These were applied to levels of knowledge as presented about teamwork from the web-

based survey and interview. These words were also used as a coding method to review

the interview and open responses to the online survey.

Generally, apart from those that could not recall teamwork teaching, all of the

participants felt they had a voice in their learning, but they were not so clear about

receiving knowledge. They would present as having subjective knowledge about teams

but this appeared to be unclear as to whether it was from other accidental team

experiences, unless the participant specifically recalled the taught teaching theories

about Belbin. Out of 48 web-based surveys and 11 interviews with 3 other invited

interviews, 51 in total, 34 recalled the Belbin teaching framework. Only six were able

to apply or relate the knowledge to another context such as the workplace or while they

were studying and were 'Constructed' in their application, e.g.,

"Sometimes, we find that some members of the team, they just want to be a part of the team but they don't really know what to contribute or have any will to contribute. It could be that they lack the knowledge of what to do, so it's always the thing that you have to- you have to give them the task especially instead of having a positive contribution from them". (18 GRADUATE 2006 M)

teamwork generally is with others most like yourself. When you 'get out into the real world' of architecture, you are



interacting with, and working as a team with, a lot of other kinds of people (disciplines, personalities, and attitudes!agendas) and the course doesn't really prepare you for this, as all teamwork has been with others much like yourself. Sometimes, this can be very tough, sometimes even a 'baptism of fire' as some of my peers might tell you .. .maybe some more teaching on the 'psychological' aspects of social interaction in the workplace... understanding the differences in people and how to recognise them, and use them for positive outcomes, how to build better relationships with more difficult or different people. The need for this actually becomes more evident as you move through your working life and interact with lots of people with agendas and backgrounds very different to yours." (1997, Architect Web-based survey Q19)

Different levels of learning Teamwork

One group of authors says that roles within a team are not important but 'the level' (from

1 to 5) of activities expressed in simplified terms, ranking the personal and theoretical

involvement of the individual that a team works at, is the most important determinant

(Isabella, Purg, Casse, Caudel, & Kenfelj, 2003). The words used were:

Level 1 Separate Groups in team

Level 2 Sub groups within team

Level 3 Task over team interaction

Level 4 Growth as team

Level 5 Open trust between team members

A series of investigations was carried out using these levels. The level 1-5 expressions

and derivations of them were used repeatedly by those interviewed. This was accidental

learning about teamwork. The respondents or interviews did not seem to be making any

statements about a teamwork theoretical framework that they were aware of.

Level 1, e.g., "In student teams some people just sometimes just don't listen to what you say, you know, they just want to get it done as quickly as possible and they are not interested in the same outcome as you are" (1999 Architect Interview)

Level 1, e.g., "some students are interested in getting it out of the way as quickly as possible so they can go surfing or whatever. Other students are interested in getting this assignment out of the way so that they can concentrate on another assignment, so you don't all have the same goal". (1999 Architect Interview)



Level 1, e.g., "we kind of took the roles that we automatically took on without sort of having to verbalise it or rationalise it and understanding it in a clear way". (2004 Graduate Interview)

Level 2, e.g., We normally did our group work together. The reason that we normally work together is because [AAA] is what I would say a real team player, and she will do things that she is asked to do. [BBB] and I are not particularly like that. [BBB] and I are both more like telling people what to do and [CCC] was just [CCC], he has moments of both where sometimes he would just want to be told what to do and just go ahead and do it, and then, but if he felt very strongly about an idea he would kind of dig his heals in and look the team worked okay, but I think [BBB] and I, you didn't really need two chiefs in that group". (1999 Architect Interview)

Level 3, e.g., "I am sort of consider who I am working with and how to work with them consciously" (Architect 2000 Interview)

Level 3, e.g., "a whole consulting process is about teams, the different disciplines coming together and trying to nut out a solution and looking at it from a different points of view and so what ends up happening from that collaboration is that you get a really rich result because everyone contributes their level of expertise". (Graduate 2002 Interview)

Level 4, e.g., "I was still a student but still an employee of the office that could really make a contribution" (1998 Architect Interview)

Level 4, e.g., We still quite often, when we are going to meet up as a group, that study still quite often comes up in conversation of what our role was picked out on that and I guess a lot of those studies really, you have to do them a couple of times to get a true picture of who you are because a lot of it can depend of how you are feel on the day and what you have been doing over that immediate kind of week but I think it actually helps understand, like if you had not actually thought about that before or thought about the different positions that a person can play in a team I think it can help give you some insight into that because I think a lot, particularly in the earlier years a lot of architecture studies very much, it is all about me, me, me kind of it is about your ideas and development and your ideas and realising your kind of project where as this puts in the context of you are one person in a large team and in a team people need to have roles and they need to find a team" (Architect, 2000 Interview)



Level 5, e.g., "you sort of keep in contact with one another and there are opportunities that come out...about, maybe an informal, I don't know, maybe an informal network". (Graduate 2002)

So the levels, while emerging from the data, were not a good indicator of learning about

teamwork. The data confirms that levels as argued (Isabella, Purg, Casse, Caudel, &

Kenfelj, 2003) are a useful theoretical concept but not in terms of what the participants

were able to reflect upon or use as a framework.

Teamwork concepts were mentioned by 32 participants out of 48 responses who had

marked 1998 (and after) as their final year of study. Whether this was because of prior

experiences within a context of teams is not clear. The Belbin expressions, (any of the

Belbin key words or if the role typologies were mentioned) were only infrequently used,

in only five out of 31 from the web-based open ended responses. The Belbin

descriptors based upon roles was not specifically mentioned until the more recent

graduates from 2002 to 2005, e.g.

Role statements from Q24 in web-based survey"I believe team dynamics to be very much about specific individual personalities and eccentricities" (Graduate 2002)

INTERVIEWER: Do you remember the points being made in thoseteamwork exercises?

Graduate 2005: There are the categories that they set up were - goal setters, idea's people, there were those who would just work until it was done. I'm struggling a bit. (2005 Graduate Interview)

Other projects, which may have not specifically sought to teach teamwork, also

contributed but only by means of experiential learning and not through specific

theoretical framework, reflection or learning. Most of the students gave some positive

response to teamwork, whether taught or learnt as a by-product of learning activities

rather than as a theoretical subject.

"For many years since I thought about what was in the lessons then and it has sort of helped me now as I work in a team environment and regularly as the leader of the team" (2000 Architect Interview)

This student has reflected upon and developed their own view of the theoretical process

as put to them. This is the A5 Contextual level articulated by Moon (2004),



"Learning teamwork at university gave a playground whereby we can test ideas without affecting any real projects/ clients. - Learning teamwork whilst in the workplace offered a more permanent reminder of past mistakes or good judgement calls" (1997 Graduate 10)

"a huge amount is learned from your fellow students: often you learned more from them than from the teachers... working with others helped greatly in maintaining energy levels, remaining enthusiastic and achieving the workload" (1997 Architect 12)

What was coming through from the data and interviews was the notion that the learning

'field' was a setting that students, who wanted to, could engage in theoretical

experimentation, and 'play' in experiential terms. They could see themselves at a level

of knowledge, and remember or recall this for the research study. Perry (1988)

designated these responses as 'level 5' thinking about teamwork.

"understanding the differences in people and how to recognise them, and use them for positive outcomes, how to build better relationships with more difficult or different people. The need for this actually becomes more evident as you move through your working life and interact with lots of people with agendas and backgrounds very different to your"(1997 Architect Web-based survey)

working with other students who had different work experience and skills" (1997 Architect Web-based survey)

The spirit of play is also an important element in the University context

"If we failed at uni, nobody would sue me" (2004 Graduate Web-based survey)

"mistakes didn't cost money!" (2001 Graduate Web-based survey)

"There is no way that one could complete this course without working together" (1998 Architect Web-based survey)

This was an important part of learning in comparison with learning on the job, the

benefit of it being a closed exercise and not needing a real client with all the

conservative responsibilities and timetables that would be brought to the exercise. The



exercise had a definite end and result that is often missing in actual professional

practice.

"I often learnt a lot from other students during group assignments and recall occasions where the group lifted all of us" (1995 Architect Web-based survey Q21)

"Teamwork roles assumed at university could be varied and didactic. Role-play can be very instructive, when it allows for experimentation and discovery not possible in practice. Workplace roles are of course more limited but also very real. Workplace responsibility is a great way to focus the mind." (2000 Graduate web-based survey Q20)

"Learning teamwork at university gave a playground whereby we can test ideas without affecting any real projects/ clients" (1997 Graduate -web-based survey Q21)

"The advantage of teamwork at universtiy is that projects and situations can be specifically constructed to give exposure to a range of team/ leadership situations. Furthermore the competitive team roleplaying at uni has the advantage of having an under stoning of competitors tactics (after the game) whereas in the real world you can win or loose a competitive contest (say for a tender) without ever really knowing why. The spirit of play is also an importnant element in the uni context"[sic] (2000c Graduate Web-based survey Q23)

Teamwork analysis by the students

Teamwork was an experience that the participants had a great deal of familiarity with at

University. Their learning about teamwork came from past experiences as well as their

expectations of each team project. An outcome of team projects was personal

transactions that occurred with the other team members. The outcome sometimes was

negative, e.g.

"there are some teams that 1 worked better with than others and sometimes when you wanted to stab people to death with a spoon" (1998 Architect Interview)

" most students had worked out who the dud students were and so by a form of social or academic Darwinism duds ended up in groups together and the more capable students tended to seek each other out for group work''( 2002 Graduate Web-based survey )



"Often I found that team work was a process of depending less and less on other people as my expectation of what they could produce was whittled away by there own ineptitude." (2004 Graduate Web-based survey)

These students were expressing their experiences of teamwork as active participants and

they were disappointed that their effort in the teamwork were not equally shared by the

other students. The view of non-shared teamwork by the other team members was

negative. The reflections by the respondents about these learning tasks on shared values

as expressed by Tuckman were at a high level, personal and subjective (Tuckman &

Chapman, 1965). This would put the level of student reflection on this experience as

subjective knowledge (Moon, 1999). There were positive responses as elsewhere

discussed.

Other interviewed students expressed advanced reflections on their responses. The

participant's knowing is one of "personal; and private, subjectively known and intuited"

knowledge (Moon, 1999). Their responses in interviews were stating knowledge seen

in context and applied to their professional situations, e.g.

"perhaps teamwork is the sort of thing that needs to be experienced rather than taught or more specifically, what is taught is useless without application" (2004 Graduate 31)

Some of the students would deny the teaching but then go on to discuss the impact of

learning about team roles from other sources, e.g.

"I do not recall formal teaching on teamwork. From this 1 observed various roles and functions that people either imposed on themselves or others. This was generally consistent with personality stereotypes. I am aware of particular tests and studies that deal with personality traits, workplace and teamwork." (1996 Graduate 08)

The knowledge of the data led me to consider the teaching methods engaged to give the

subject resources to the students rather than looking at the levels of knowledge as

related through the interviews. What was also evident in the interviews and web-based

survey was that the other areas of teamwork covered about Motivation (Maslow),

Theory X and Theory Y (Macgregor), Stages of Team formation (Tuckman), were not

mentioned. However, what had emerged from the data was that the Belbin exercises

and completion of the BSPIP and counselling reports had remained in the participants'



memory. This had been developed into knowledge that was shown by reflection and

being able to subjectively apply this to their responses in the web-based survey and

interviews. What was also apparent was that there were no negative reactions to the use

of the Belbin instrument and the Belbin BSPIP counselling reports.

Conflict within Teams

When a team is completing its tasks, disputes about various issues arise. Typically

these will be between team members about issues of creativity, and unless there is a

great deal of trust and knowledge between team members, conflict will result. For

architecture teams, formed to create an architectural project, where the selection of the

team members for a building project is usually a choice of the client or architect,

conflict may arise as to what is the best idea to continue with. However for the

architectural team to succeed, different ideas are needed to arrive at the optimal

solution. The discussion and decision of the best idea to proceed with becomes a

contentious issue. When team members are committed to the team goals then the team

will take ideas being put forward seriously and together the team members will decide

and 'own' their considered optimal solution. This is where disputes and conflict can

arise. The issue of team member selection then becomes important, e.g.

"7 am more in control in who that team comprises of and it is more based on actual real experiences rather than who my friends are"' (1998 Architect Interview)

However this comment by the respondent does not recognise the contributions that

unknown team members can have. They were selecting a 'safe' team. They do not seeconflict in teams as being a positive or normal approach in teams. One of the more

insightful things that can be observed within teams, which only some participants

commented on, is recognition that conflict in teams can be good and can give rise to

unexpected solutions that no one individual could create. One way this conflict can be

brought about is by not having ideal members, e.g.

"they all turn into very positive productive things because that discussion and a number of brains coming together, and the outcomes are far better than they would have been if I for example just done it on my own"..." there are things [in] teamwork, working in a team, is that the collaboration process does allow some experimentation, I mean, because you have four or five people working together on something



the outcome is a little bit unpredictable, 1 think because of the nature of the dynamic and how people work in a group." (2002 Graduate Interview)

Disclosure by students

When one of respondents laughed about something said, this was important. This was revealing something close to their intuition about how teamwork should be taught,

"I am not sure how you would do it, unless you did some, I don't know, some role-playing stuff, where people took part at different sort of points of view if you like, or something like that. I guess it is easier if you can see it in practice, in the work place because then it shows you how it can work, yeah,I am not really sure, that is not a really good answer but, (laughs)” (1998 Architect Interview)

Is laughing and humour a metaphor for lying, or not telling the whole truth? Are they

saying something they thought I wanted to hear? Were they embarrassed about their

statements? When one participant said, "look..." they were demonstrating their style as a

shaper, "challenging, dynamic..." in the words of Belbin (1993),

"Look, all of my teamwork experiences were positive, I am not sure whether it was because in the early stages it was by accident the team that you ended up with, and you ended up working with the same team throughout the final six years and you start building a rapport and then, you know, you become very good friends and so they all turn into very positive productive things because that discussion and a number of brains coming together, and the outcomes are far better than they would have been if I for example just done it on my own, you know" (2003 Graduate Interview)

The word 'look' (especially over the phone!!) was embracing the impatience of a

respondent who cannot believe the item is not self-evident. Then the respondent goes

onto to show the roles that people act in teams when they are based on friendship rather

than team roles. The respondent was not able to access a framework for teamwork and

roles.

Teamwork in the architectural workplace

The students were required to be working in an architectural workplace during the

period of this research investigation. Professional work in architecture is about working



with people. It is not about constant creative acts performed in isolation. Usually in

architectural professional practice creative acts are performed to rectify given situations,

defects and problems rather than perform artistic permutations or apply artistic

sensibilities. These require working with other people in situations where practical

teamwork skills can be applied to bring about positive outcomes to project objectives.

This is where team issues such as membership, loafing, hygiene and justice are all vital

factors that can be exposed and considered in the University setting.

Teaching in the professional practice of architecture should be about preparing students

to work in teams and not to work as individuals who do not have any skills to work with

others. The Belbin Self Perception Inventory Profile is an example of a structured way

to identify the role of individuals in a team and to encourage the students to act within,

and reflect upon, roles and the part they can play in the academic and professional

career.

Part of this research then is to assess if they remembered teamwork that was taught to

them, and what stayed with them about teamwork. The research also investigated if

teamwork had any relation to the team they were in at University of Technology,

Sydney and when they were in the workplace either when they were studying and after

their study was completed.

Experimentation in Teamwork

Students were also able to perceive they could adopt different roles in the University

setting that they could not do in the workplace either while they were studying or after

when they had graduated,

"The roles that you undertake in a work situation (i.e. subordinate/junior role) are often opposite to those that you undertake at university (senior /directive role)... This gives you the opportunity to see the teamwork from different perspectives. Positive teamwork experiences includegetting the opportunity to work with fellow friends from university with amazing talents and skills." (2000 Graduate 19)

"Teamwork roles assumed at university could be varied and didactic. Role-play can be very instructive, when it allows for



experimentation and discovery not possible in practice"(2000 Graduate Web-based survey )

"projects and situations can be specifically constructed to give exposure to a range of team/ leadership situations. Furthermore the competitive team role-playing at uni has the advantage of having an understanding of competitor's tactics (after the game) whereas in the real world you can win or loose a competitive contest (say for a tender) without ever really knowing why" (2000 Graduate Web-based survey )

"helped find ways in which to apply my strengths in my current employment... sort out what you are in fact better at doing in a team situation" (1999 Graduate Web-based survey)

"No real 'responsibility' at uni Mistakes had no repercussions" (2000 Graduate 18)

Hygiene issues of teaching and experiencing Teamwork

Only some students out of 37 responses saw a negative in learning teamwork at

University. Most of these negative feelings were about minor issues that could have

been dealt with as they related to assessment protocols and outcomes rather than thetheoretical lessons learnt as part of the subject,

"team work was a process of depending less and less on other people as my expectation of what they could produce was whittled away by their own ineptitude" (2004 Graduate 32)

The feeling of 'carrying' other team members, e.g.

"Teamwork at uni sometimes worked and sometimes didn't depending on the people in the group, as sometimes they didn't pull their weight" (2000 Graduate 21)

"people who don't pull their weight or have different expectations and standards to you. This often causes frustrations" (2000 Architect 24)

"I was taught that team work in an academic environment simply doesn't work. In any academic group task, 80% percent of the work will be done by 20% of the group ... Teamwork with an academic output teaches 80% of the

Fite: Masters 061101 Final, doc 11:30 PM - 1 November 2006 Page 75 of 106


students that, in the right group, they can get a great mark with little or no effort. The conceptual lessons on teamwork, however (taught in professional practice), was interesting and of some use... In most cases, group work punishes the diligent and rewards the indolent." (2002 Graduate 26)

This view was common amongst students during discussion on assessment in the

classes for this subject. Since 2004, a different system of assessment was employed for

grading student work using the work by Freeman, Mackenzie and others who have

created a student self and peer assessment method, called Self and Peer Assessment

Review Kit (SPARK), (Freeman & McKenzie, 2001). This allowed the students to

assess, amongst other items, input by each student member of their team into teamwork

and how they had assisted or otherwise. The student is also able to self-assess their

contribution. The review by the other students is input against the self-assessment and a

factor calculated. The resultant factor for each individual student is applied to the team

mark so that each student received an individual mark reflecting the view of the their

performance by other members of the team. While many students elected to share a

common mark without altering individual marks, effectively giving all members of a

team an equal ranking, those who feel aggrieved at 'carrying' others can allocate their

responses accordingly. I have been using this system since 2004. The students have

appreciated the clarity of marking and have been able to commit to the teamwork

exercises with an expectation that their individual work will result in a fairer mark for

their efforts.

The negative experiences of teamwork were a repeated theme that emerged throughoutthe web-based surveys and interviews, e.g.

"A lot of the forced groupwork subjects/projects (did not get to choose team) were negative experiences as had to carry weaker students" (2002 Graduate 27)

This student had yet to understand that there are no 'weaker' students, only their

perception of the other student, which has to be seen in the context of their unknowing

about team roles and team process. In the professional workplace the architect's role is

to work with 'weaker' members of a team. Sometimes these weaker members are the

clients and without them there is no project. A mark of professionalism is the ability to

work with and educate team members so the common goal can be met. The groups

were generally self-selected throughout the study period. Teams were allowed to



change after the initial class exercises, though when the Belbin Inventory was submitted

and when the deadline approached for the teamwork submissions, the teams were

expected to remain constant throughout the rest of the teamwork assessment period.

Role-playing and experiential learning

The teamwork responses were also carefully checked for references to the actual

methods as taught during the introductory lectures (on the mention of 'roles' in

teamwork). The later graduates and architects all made mention of 'roles' in their survey

responses or interview transcriptions, e.g.

Interviewer "Were you able to apply any of the skills that were taught about Belbin or any of the other matters in the teamwork?

2004 Graduate UTS Well we were sort of aware of it but I guess, because the five of us had already been working together for a few years we had kind of had already established pretty reasonably clear roles in terms of what each of us was capable of doing and did and would do good while we were working together so while we were aware of the sort of the Belbin ways of looking at team work and group work and how it sort of attempted to analyse it or categorise people in their roles and things, we were already kind of [knew, we were ]a little bit set in our ways in terms of what, the way we work together already and so we sort of went ahead and did what we always did in some ways".

From this quote this student was denying the process of teaching and instruction about

teams. They went on to state how they now had a terminology to describe what to them

was a normal activity. This is not contextual knowledge where the student understood

the framework and was able to place their knowledge (Moon, 2004). The response does not indicate an emotional and/or 'accelerated learning' only accidental learning,

where the past team experience was repeated, a safer response than dealing with

unknown team members and the possible conflict that could arise.

During the interviews I found out that those who recall Belbin are able to perceive

professional roles and the roles they can adopt in practice in the workplace. Those who

do not recall Belbin, did not recall roles within their team, but did recall teamwork as

bounded by the workload for the assessment without standing back and seeing roles as

part of team framework. These levels (Isabella L., 2003) would be called a 2nd or 3rd

level, and not 4th or 5th (Moon, 2004).



Summary of results

From the review of the responses to data questions (Q1 to Q8) and ranking questions

(Q9 to Q18) after they have been arranged into a chronological order from "Q1 When

was your last year of study" in the web-based survey,

• Learning about the specific Belbin model being taught was recalled after 1998.

• There was high number of those who did not recall teamwork being taught, or

the Belbin role model, but who were still interested in completing such an

instrument.

• The Q1 was confusing and has not given clear data on which year the teamwork

teaching could be recalled.

• In quantitative numbers the numbers of responses remembering Belbin was only

two out of seven pre 1998 compared with two out of 19 from 2000 cohort on.

From the review of the open questions in the web-based survey after they have been

arranged into a historical order,

• Belbin is only mentioned in the later cohort graduate years, especially from 1998

onwards.

• From Q19, 14 out of 19 answered that the teaching in teamwork was “not at all”

a waste of time.

• Teamwork is demanded of students in many subjects.

• Teamwork is not taught in other subjects at the University in a theoretical

framework.

• The open-ended questions gave rise to interesting insights.

• The negative aspects of loafing and conflict.

• Other models of teaching teamwork.

• Other subject areas needing research.

• Suggested improvements on further research instruments.

In the 14 follow-up interviews the following became apparent,



• The teaching of teamwork at University was worthwhile and useful in personal

lives and professional careers, especially as they relate to architecture.

• There is a link to working with others (in teams) and conflict.

• The risk of conflict was a major concern of the participants in any form of

teamwork. -

• Experiential teaching of teamwork was an effective method of learning.

After the web-based survey data and interview data was coded and reviewed, the

following emerged in several areas as follows,

• Students where able to discern theoretical constructs about their professional

roles during University when they had the appropriate time and resources.

• There were no critical responses to the use of the Belbin role model or Belbin

instrument BSPIP.

• The use of 'roles' is a useful description of the part that individuals carry out in

teams in a learning project or a professional project in the workplace.

• Learning from stimulating, interesting and relevant projects with the appropriate

time and resources leads to better learning outcomes.

• Teamwork is necessary in later professional practice.

• Learning and applying team skills is a necessary part of learning in other

subjects at the University.

• Loafing, risk and conflict are major concerns for respondents in teamwork both

at the University and the workplace.


Learning Teamwork in Architecture 5. Discussion

5. Discussion

This research study was about the investigation of learning about teamwork at University

and in the workplace in the architectural profession. Graduates over a period of more than

ten years from a specific University architecture course were asked by a web-based survey

and a personal interview about their teamwork experiences while they were studying and

working in architects' offices at the same time. Over 300 graduates were invited and 48

responded to web-based survey and then 14 detailed interviews were completed.

The research supports the view that teamwork teaching needs to be more focussed as part

of the assessment so individuals can be marked just for their team reflection and learning,

rather than the teamwork solely in relation to the specified outcomes (what the team does

for a final assessment mark). The advantage of having both the teamwork learning and the

student assignments aligned means the way the students allocated their time according to

the assessment and the personal learning became meaningful. This is referred to as a 'two

factor model' (Cropanzano & Schminke, 2001), where the two factors are procedure and

outcome. These differences are relative while the team is formed and reaches its

objectives. Then there is how a team perceives itself when the work for the specified

assessment outcome has to be distributed amongst the team, usually equally. The team

would like some form of procedural fairness in distribution of the rewards (the marks), as

the team perceives them. Usually the outcomes are allocated on an equity rule (marks

shared equally) and team procedures by an equality rule (each member does an equal

amount of work).

Without the assessment as part of the objective in the exercise, the internal reflection or

individual performance and application to any or all of the team tasks may be replaced by

what could be called "social loafing" (Karau & Williams, 2001). Loafing in teams or

groups has a researched background dating from Group Rope Pulling test (Ringlemann,

1917). He found that as the group increased in numbers so did the amount of power

exerted fall below what power would be expected to increase (as mentioned in Kravitz &

Martin, 1986). The original task the students had to perform as part of the subject they

were studying was designed to ensure the students' attention and allow the process to be



stimulating, engaging and be relevant to their level of study in professional practice of

architecture. The tasks involved all of the students in a team participating in several

written submissions, calculations and a presentation by the team.

Research process

Teamwork in education of architects is a vital skill and requires knowledge, suited for a

wide variety of subject areas. The past graduates were surveyed or interviewed, and the

responses were evaluated by comparison with the various considerations of the Belbin

team styles, i.e. were the graduates using the terminology or processes that had been taught

to them? Generally the impact of other team typologies, such as Theory X and Theory Y

or other typologies by Goleman (1995) or Covey (1989) were not mentioned. In only three

out of 48 web-based surveys and in one out of 14 interviews were there references to other

teamwork theories or typologies.

Did they apply the various styles outlined by Belbin, either with or without prompting?

Five (16%) of the 31 of participants from the web-based survey who recalled the team

exercises also went on to mention various roles that students had adopted. Several of those

interviewed commented upon the amount of time that had passed between the teaching and the research study.

Were specific elements emerging in the dialogue as discussed by Glaser (1967) and Strauss

(1998)? As the researcher, I was able to discern a pattern in the responses emerging

through the words of the respondents. Some of these elements were coming through in

qualitative terms, about how the students felt about teamwork from the interviews. Other

elements appeared as a result of the web-based survey data being ranked by last year of

study, about the recall of teamwork teaching after 1998.

These responses suggested that the participants found that teamwork was a skill useful for

architecture and in architectural practice. During interviews and surveys, the participants

recalled teamwork at the University and were able to apply the skills in the professional

workplace after they had graduated and become registered as architects.



Teamwork is an area that has attracted a lot of research around team performance and team

control, especially in terms of leadership and performance by achieving objectives.

However less research exists about learning or teaching of team roles or on the teams

themselves. This research focussed on three areas: Taught Teamwork, which was taught at

the University of Technology, Sydney in the architecture program over a specific period of

time; Learned Teamwork, which comprised experiential learning by the students at the

University of Technology, Sydney in the architecture program; and Accidental teamwork,

through lived experiences, derived from both inside and outside the university, and

afterwards in the workplace.

Uniquely for undergraduate architecture programs throughout Australia, the students were

required to be working in an architect's office while they studied at University of

Technology, Sydney. During the period of the research study, 1994 to 2005, all of the

respondents were working in the architecture profession and were still working in

architecture or an allied field when they undertook the survey or interviews.

Teamwork is about the balance between the two extremes of efficiency and effectiveness

of teams and individuals. As Baron, Kerr and Miller argues, if you have the right

individual and a suitably sized task, the individual is the most efficient unit. However,

when the task is too large for an individual to complete efficiently, a group or team is the

most effective unit (Baron, Kerr, & Miller, 1992). Most work units and project tasks fall

between these extremes. Groups are effective when they are structured to take into

account a variety of factors and by so doing become a team.

The students, during their final year of study, were set an objective to form a team, to

complete an assignment as a team and give a presentation as a team, in such a way that

encouraged each member of the team to participate fully. The task was a simulation that

required the students to form as an architectural firm, prepare a fee proposal and make a

presentation for a real project. This learning task was designed so all the benefits of

working in a team, e.g. efficiency, sharing of workload, and wide experiences of different

roles could be explored by the students.



Taught Teamwork

Taught Teamwork occurred at University of Technology, Sydney over the specific time of

the research study from 1994 until 2005, using the Belbin team roles typology. From

1999, this seemed to have a significant impact on the students, with them remembering and

applying the principles over a period of time. From 1998, although the task was essentially

the same as in earlier years, the learning activities were more carefully structured to permit

increased emphasis on the teamwork. The team members were given detailed information

about five different professional teams (financial data and descriptive data taken from real

architecture firms) that they could use to make up their team profiles. The students had to

select from these five sets of data to create their own interpretations for their own teams.

This restructuring of the learning task reduced the number of issues on which the team had

to focus, and appeared to the teachers involved in the teaching to have a substantial effect

on the quality of the teamwork. At the time we attributed this to the fact that the students

had a reduced number of tasks, allowing them to focus more closely on teamwork. They

only had to 'assemble' the data rather than create whole artificial scenarios. This part of the

experiential learning seemed to have a greater impact as the students could more easily

handle the volume of data and information and could focus more on the teamwork and its

theoretical application. Teams were constructed in two ways. They were either self-

selected or the teacher imposed team membership. Although there is insufficient

conclusive data on whether the team membership was random and imposed on the student

cohort (2006) or self selected (2004), the method of selection seems to have less effect on

the results in comparison with keeping the workload focus.

Learned Teamwork

Learned teamwork refers to participants’ experiences of learning teamwork, either

incidentally or formally as part of the learning objectives. Prior to 1998, although

teamwork was taught, the learning was overpowered by the assignment. Participants only

had time to focus on the task at the expense of learning about teamwork. After 1998,

learning teamwork was overtly encouraged through the restructuring of the learning tasks

that permitted time to learn about teamwork. Experiential learning is acknowledged as one

of the most powerful and effective methods of adult teaching (Isabella, Purg, Casse,

Caudel, & Kenfelj, 2003; Kolb, 1984; Moon, 2004; Thorley & Gregory). The students still

experienced working in teams prior to 1998 but participants who studied then did not recall



teamwork theory or models. That means they did not retain a framework about teams

which would assist their understanding and future application in the workplace. By

contrast, the data suggests that whatever their final year of study, all participants

remembered the marketing and presentation exercise, the actual task they achieved during

their study in the subject as a team. Whether it was from a team perspective, as in the

more recent years, or just as a lot of hard work in the earlier years, the actual learning that

was taking place as they were doing the work was the most effective manner of placing

and developing the knowledge and skills in the students.

Accidental Teamwork

Accidental Teamwork as derived from experiences both inside and outside the University,

was also studied as part of this research. The response to the web-based survey question

“In what other ways did you learn about teamwork at UTS” (Q.10) was scored by 33 out

of 48 participants. The respondents stated in the data that they did have a lot of group

projects and were told to be in teams for a variety of subjects during their study at the

University. However several students noted that they had not had any theoretical

instruction on teamwork in any other subject area other than the professional practice

subject. In most cases when students chose teams they do so based on existing friendships.

This kind of groupwork experience is usually controlled by the students’ preferences to

work with people they know. As a result it reduces the opportunity for students to

experience different thinking, communication, work styles and both the rewards and the

conflict associated with difference. Hence the teamwork experience may not be as rich.

For some, the teamwork experience had such a profound effect that friendships made in

teams have been retained since graduation. Other participants remembered their team

experiences with bitterness.

Accidental learning about teamwork also occurs in the workplace. Participants who

mentioned this aspect noted that the workplace, while ideal and useful for learning other

activities, did not support experimental learning about teamwork, only 'observation' of

various team roles. In the workplace things are serious and substantial responsibility and

risk is involved. Therefore a team member is less likely to experiment with behaviours at

work.



Additional findings

When the teamwork was experienced in other subjects without a theoretical model being

established, then neither the teamwork nor any of its attributes appeared as a useful

outcome of the work performed in the subject. Generally the comment by the respondents

was that the work was done. There were no other comments except about workload, over

work or time spent upon the project. There were very few comments about team roles or

theoretical approaches to teamwork.

From studies of teamwork by other researchers, I would have expected participants to refer

to teamwork in sport. However in all the questions and surveys completed only a single

reference is made to sport. Also I would have expected more comments to have been

made about teamwork in the workplace, as this unique group of students had to have a job

in an architectural workplace while they were studying and partaking in the subject.

While many of the students in the survey made some comment about the workplace, there

were also those that did not mention the workplace. Those that did mention it associated

teamwork in the workplace with risk and reward. The different nature of teamwork in the

workplace was where usually team members were committed by contract or instruction

rather than hygiene or motivation theories (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959).

Emerging results

The real learning experience of teamwork for architecture students was during the

application of an assignment that was orientated to real life experiences, where the students

were given both a model to work with and the resources to allow them to express

themselves as students. The students appreciated the ‘real’ workplace simulation when

they were studying and after they had graduated. Respondents indicated that teaching in

teamwork was significant in their later careers as architects or in their chosen career.

It was apparent that from 1998, there was a shift in the students' recall of the learning and

the impact that it had. The assignments had not changed and the subject matter was the

same, however the project was delivered in a more structured manner that reduced the

amount of work the students had to do. The student team dynamics had not changed

significantly. Student experience narratives reflected similar team problems and issues.

However all the students after this period recalled the Belbin instrument and teaching



about teamwork whereas before 1998 they generally did not recall being exposed to the

Belbin model or indeed any theoretical model of teamwork. One explanation for lack of

recall prior to 1998 could be related to increased experience and familiarity with the

material on the part of the teachers concerned. However, this would not explain such an

abrupt change in the data. Another explanation could relate to the time period of recall,

differential levels of accuracy of recall being expected over time. However it is interesting

that almost all respondents referring to learning during the period prior to 1998 did not

recall being exposed to any theoretical model of teamwork.

From the open-ended questions and then the interviews, the participants talked about the

effect of teamwork on their friendships and being able to 'get through University'. These

lived experiences were significant. By the time they were taught about teamwork they

were in their final year of study. Many of the other comments made about teamwork in

other subjects were alluding to the earlier years of study during which teamwork was not

formally taught but team skills were expected from students. Responses suggested that

students felt that they had been inadequately prepared for team-based projects in the earlier

years of the course. From the interviews, the participants saw teamwork as an essential

skill for architects (and other parts of life) and made comments about how teamwork was

taught at the University in the Professional Practice stream of subjects.

"when you are employing, when you are putting an office together you need to make sure you have people that complement each other, you don't want everybody who have the same skills so I think that side of it, it is almost the psychology of the office, the psychology of how people work and I think in that way that is incredibly useful". (2000 Architect Interview)

Other subjects required teamwork, but several participants noted the only theoretical

teamwork model was taught in the subject Professional Practice and this was commented

upon positively and was useful at a later stage in a student’s career.

"For many years since I thought about what was in the lessons then and it has sort of helped me now as I work in a team environment and regularly as the leader of the team". (2000 Architect Interview)

The application of teamwork and the team roles leads to new and better ways of

understanding the individual roles in a team process. The architecture profession and

architecture student will be well served by the updating of and research into the Belbin



process. The outcome of the research and its new application will have ramifications to

design work as the new types of practice seek out new ways of working together as teams.

It became apparent that the students in their dialogue with the web-based survey or

interview were reflecting, talking, and giving feedback on what was an intensely personal

part of their education. Several talked about conflict and then went on to say how conflict

could be avoided, not realising the conflict can be a useful and integral part of the success

of teamwork in an academic and professional sense. What was not apparent was a point

where the students simultaneously realised the conflict and how it can be used in teams i.e.

how could it be encouraged or facilitated without personal animosity for creative problem

solving.

Personal reflection of the researcher

What was apparent after the survey and interviews were concluded was the incredible

amount of goodwill and generosity of spirit the graduates had after all that the teaching at

university could throw at them. Even as the tasks mounted and their workplaces piled on

more work and deadlines and the pay got lower the students responded with good grace

and fortitude to answer the call of learning new skills and applying new theories that they

trusted the university and its teachers to guide them. It humbles me as a teacher and guide

to have such a responsibility, and the responses from the participants is uplifting, as well as

seeing how well these graduates have grown into professional architects.

Belbin studied successful teams and tried to determine what and why they were successful

based upon the individual's roles within teams and teamwork. Other studies of teams are a

study of individuals and how they contribute to a team, and do not study why the team

succeeded. They expect that individuals can form a team about whose outcomes of

success are expected whether from special stars or team players of extra ability or 'team-

ness' within the team. Belbin’s research indicated that teams made up of stars did not

perform well. The teams that performed well had members who were able to perform the

required roles the team needed and did not need star quality members. The team that

understood its member's inherent abilities and, unique to Belbin research, the roles they

could adopt and the roles they should avoid, was the team that would outperform the other

teams though this result is not part of this study. From the period being investigated in this



research study teamwork teaching was useful for the students. The results of this research

study show an increase in knowledge about teams and application of teamwork knowledge

and skills that were a benefit to the students based upon the participants in this research

study. For this learning to occur consideration has to be given to the specific materials and

processes that the students have to undertake.

Conclusion

The study was predicated upon documented research about teamwork in regard to graduate

outcomes as stated by the University, which promote teamwork as a core graduate

capability together with some references to the architectural team in the professional

literature. Grounded theory has been used as a conceptual framework in this research,

analysing the actual words of the participants to explore emergent themes, supported by a

quantitative ranking of results from the web-based survey.

The results of this study suggest that theory related to team roles can be internalised,

enacted and taught to architecture students. There is also evidence from the study that

participants in the workplace who have studied team role theory remember the theoretical

constructs, if adequate focus is given to teamwork in the process. However, hygiene

factors such as risk, contractual roles and loafing appear to be influencing participants’

perceptions of the team roles and teamwork in the workplace.

Current thinking about teamwork is affirmed by the results of the study. The study

supports the concept that teamwork should be taught rather than be assumed to be learnt as

part of group tasks or left to accidental learning at University or in the workplace. The

data revealed that in learning about teamwork during their study at University, students

combined learning with social interaction, which took the experience to another level of

learning (Moon, 2004). This is strongly supported by evidence from the surveys prior to

1998. I suggest that the clear differences in the perceptions of students prior to 1998 are

due to a change in delivery mode that took place in 1998. In 1997, I recognised that

students were overloaded with the variety of tasks that they need to complete resulting in

students having less time to focus on team issues. The course was refined to reduce the

number of tasks that had to be achieved. This suggests that if teamwork is to be effectively

taught appropriate space must be available for its inclusion in the curriculum, together with



an appropriate level of emphasis. From 1998, the respondents indicate teamwork being

taught and indicate that it was very useful in the workplace. Initially, students in the study

regarded learning about professional teamwork as secondary during their architectural

studies but this research revealed that they later reassessed teamwork as a critical skill in

their professional careers.

In conclusion, the results from this study support the premise that if graduate outcomes for

architectural students require demonstration of team skills then teamwork must be formally

taught at the University and space must be made in the curricula in accordance with its

importance.

Future research

A number of opportunities for further research exist.

• Teamwork involving social interaction as well as technical team processes to achieve learning objectives.

• It would appear that most of the available literature on teamwork is based upon

Western educational systems and is specific to a Western culture based model

rather than other cultures, e.g. Eastern, Indian or other ethnic backgrounds.

• Students' experiences, at other universities or other teamwork studies, and if these

have had an impact on the data collected.

• Longitudinal Study of Belbin BSPIP Counselling and Team Reports.

• The nature and importance of knowledge about teamwork in the architectural

careers of the participants.

• What knowledge needs to be taught to architectural students that is relevant to their

future career.

These questions merit further investigation.

This study forms a starting point for much needed research into architectural education

particularly research that draws upon the experiences of recent graduates in the workplace.


Learning Teamwork in Architecture 6. Bibliography

6. BibliographyAACA. (2001). Competency Standards for Architectural Profession.Anon. (2003). S:Team. Retrieved 4/3/2005, 23/3/2006, 2005, 2006, from

http://hornepaqe.mac.com/artistrv/s-team/index.htmlArgyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1974). Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Baron, R. S., Kerr, N., & Miller, N. (1992). Group Process, Group Decision, Group Action. Buckingham:

Open University Press.Belbin, M. (1981). Management teams : why they succeed or fail. Oxford, England: Butterworth

Heinemann.Belbin, M. (1993a). A reply to the Psychometric assessment of the Belbin Team-Role Perception

Inventory by Furnham, Steele and Pendelton. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 66(3), 259.

Belbin, M. (1993b). Team Roles at Work. UK: Butterworth Heinemann.Belbin, M. (1996). The Coming Shape of Organization. UK: Butterworth Heinemann.Belbin, M. (1997). Changing the way we work. Oxford ; Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.Belbin, M. (2000). Beyond the team. Oxford Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.Belbin, M. (2001). Managing Without Power - Gender relationships in the story of human evolution. UK:

Butterworth Heinemann.Belbin, R. M. (1969). The discovery method: an international experiment in retraining. Paris: Organisation

for Economic Co-operation and Development. Manpower and Social Affairs Directorate.Bendaly, L. (1996). Games Teams Play: Dynamic Activities for Tapping Work Team Potential. Whitby,

Ontario: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited.Binet, A. (1903). The Experimental Study of Intelligence.Bouma, G. D. (1996). The Research Process (3rd ed.). Melbourne Australia: Oxford University Press.Briskin, A. (1996). The stirring of soul in the workplace (1st ed.). San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass

Publishers.Broadbent, G. (1973). Design in Architecture. Chichester: Wiley.Buchanan, T. (2003, 13/3). Internet Mediated Psychological Assessment: Problems with use of normative

data. Paper presented at the British Psychological Society Annual Conference, Bournemouth.Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Research.

Chicago: Rand McNally.Cannon, R. A. (1988). Lecturing. Sydney: UNSW.Caudill, W. W. (1971). Architecture by Team; a new concept for the practice of architecture. New York,:

Van Nostrand Reinhold.Chapman, A. (2005). www.Businessballs.com [Electronic Version], Dec 2005. Retrieved 4/6/2006 from

http://www.businessballs.com.Coady, T. (2000). Why Universities Matter. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.Cobley, P., & Jansz, L. (1997). Introducing Semiotics. Cambridge: Icon Books UK.Covey, S. R. (1989). The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. Melbourne: The Business Library.Creswell, H. B. (1943). The Honeywood File : an adventure in building. London: Faber and Faber.Crinson, M. (1994). Architecture, art of profession? Manchester and New York: Manchester University

Press.Crooks, T. J. (1988). Assessing Student Performance. Australia: Higher Education Research and

Development Society of Australasia.Cropanzano, R., & Schminke, M. (2001). Ch 5 Justice and Work Groups. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at

Work. New Jersey: L Erlbaum Associates.Cuff, D. (1991). Architecture: The Story of Practice. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.Doenau, S. (1995). Key Ideas in Team Building. Australia: Edvance Publications.Drucker, P. F. (1961). The Practice of Management. London: Mercury Books.Ehrich, L. C. (1996). The Difficulties of Using phenomenology. David Lovell Publishing.Eiger, D., & Russell, P. (2002). Teaching Knowledge Management using Distributed Practice Simulation.Federman, S. R., & Hurd, S. (2000). Using student teams in the classroom: A faculty guide. Boston:

Anker.Feyerabend, P. (1993). Against Method (3 ed.): Verso.Freeman, M., & McKenzie, J. (2001). Aligning peer assessment with peer learning for large classes: The

case for an online self and peer assessment system. Peer Learning in Higher Education.

File: Masters 061101 Finai.doc 11:30 PM ■ 1 November 2006 Page 90 of 106


Freeman, M., & McKenzie, J. (2002). Implementing and evaluating SPARK, a confidential, web based template for self and peer assessment of student teamwork: benefits of evaluating across different subjects. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(5), 553-572.

Furnham, S. P. (1993). A psychometric assessment of the Belbin Team Role Self-Perception Inventory. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 66(3), 244-257.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine Publishing Company.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence Why it can matter more than IQ. Bloomsbury, London.Groen, R. (2000). Handling the problems with teams. Paper presented at the Belbin Team-Role Users

Conference 2000, UK.Gulick, L. H., & Urwick, L. F. (1954). Papers on the science of administration (3rd ed.). N.Y.: Institute of

Public Administration.Harding, S., & Long, T. (1998). Proven management models. Aldershot, Hampshire, England: Gower.Heerden, J. v. (1999). Some Remarks on the History of Method. In Research Methodology in the Social,

Behavioural & Life Sciences. London.Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work.Higgs, J. (1997). Qualitative Research: Discourse on Methodologies. Sydney: Hampden Press.Higgs, J. (1998). Writing Qualitative Research. Sydney: Hampden Press.Hildebrandt, J., & Smith, D. (1994). Theories of personality [videorecording /]. [Great Britain]: Avi, Audio

Video,.Isabella, L., Purg, D., Casse, P., Caudel, P., & Kenfelj, H. (2003). Teams and Teamwork: A Foundation:

Darden Graduate School of Business Administration.Isabella L., P. D., Casse P., Caudel P., Kenfelj H. (2003). Teams and Teamwork: A Foundation: Darden

Graduate School of Business Administration.Jones, K. (1997). Creative Events for Trainers. London: McGraw Hill.Jung, C. (1921). Psychological Types. Zurich.Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (2001). Ch 4 Understanding Individual Motivation in Groups: The Collective

Effort Model. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at Work. New Jersey: L Erlbaum Associates.Kline, T. (1999). Remaking Teams - The Revolutionary Research-Based Guide That Puts Theory into

Practice: Jossey-Bass Pfeiffer.Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiental Learning. Englewoods Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Kollar, L. P. (1980). Form. Sydney: L Peter Kollar.Kravitz, D. A., & Martin, B. (1986). Ringlemann rediscovered: the original article. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 50, 936-941.Leigh, D. (1991). A practical approach to group training. London: Kogan Page.Leigh, E., & Kinder, J. (1999). Learning through fun & games. Sydney: McGraw Hill.Maister, D. H. (1997). True Professionalism. New York: The Free Press.Margerison, C., & McCann, D. (1984). Team Mapping: A New Approach to Managerial Leadership.

Journal of European Industrial Training (Emerald), 8(1), 12-16.Margerison, C. J., & Lewis, R. (1981). Mapping managerial styles. Bradford: MCB Publications.Marston, W. M. (1923). The Emotions of Normal People.Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.McCann, D. (1998). Temporal Stability of Psychometric Instruments. Australia: Team Management

Systems.McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. N.Y. ; Harmondsworth: McGraw-Hill Penguin.McGregor, D. (1969). Theory X and theory Y, the work of Douglas McGregor. Part 1 Description of the

theory [motion picture :]. Washington D.C.: BNA Incorporated.McGregor, D., Bennis, W. G., & Schein, E. H. (1966). Leadership and motivation : essays of Douglas

McGregor. Cambridge, Mass. ; London: M.l.T. Press.McHoul, A., & Grace, W. (1993). A Foucault Primer. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis (Second ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage

Publications.Milne, R. (1999). Investigative Interviewing: Psychology and Practice. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Moon, J. A. (2004). Handbook of Reflective and Experiential Learning, Theory and Practice.

RoutledgeFalmer, London.Morris, D. (1977). Manwatching: a field guide to human behaviour. London: Cape.Morse, J. M. (Ed.). (1994). Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage

Publications.Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual : a guide to the development and use of the Myers-

Briggs type indicator. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press.



Myers, I. B., & Myers, P. B. (1995). Gifts differing: understanding personality type. Palo Alto, Calif.: Davies-Black Pub.

Myers, S. (2000). MTR-i Team Roles - Comparisons between MTRi team roles and Belbin and the MBTI Instruments.

Newbie, D., & Cannon, T. (1989). Handbook for Teachers in Universities & Colleges.O'Mara, M. (1997). Making group projects in studio work for you. In A. Pressman (Ed.), Professional

Practice 101. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Parker, S. K., & Williams, H. M. (2001). Effective Teamworking: reducing the pyschosocial risks. UK: HSE

Books.Perlmutter, H. V. (1965). Towards a theory and practice of social architecture; the building of

indispensable institutions. London,: Tavistock Publications.Perry, W. G. (1988). Different Worlds in the Same Classroom: Kogan Page.Peters, T. (1994). The Tom Peters Seminar. London: Macmillan.Pont, T. (1998). Interviewing Skills for Managers. London: Piatkus.Probyn, E. (2005, 22/6/2005). Method does matter. The Australian.Provost, J. A., & Anchors, S. (1987). Applications of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator in higher education.

Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Pugh, D. S., & Hickson, D. J. (1997). Writers on organizations (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage

Publications.Qualitative Solutions and Research Pty Ltd. (1993). User's Guide for QSR NUD - 1ST. Thousand Oaks:

Sage Publications.RAIA. (1999). Advisory Note No. 06.02.302 Teamwork. Australia: The Royal Australian Institute of

Architects.Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to Teach in Higher Education. London and New York: Routledge.Ramsden, P. (1998). Learning to Lead in Higher Education. London: Routledge.Rand, A. (1953). The Fountainhead (2d ed.). London: Cassell.Rimmington, G. (1999). Building Balanced Teams for Student Projects Retrieved 2/11/2002, from

Http://www. unimelb.edu.auRushmer, R. (1996). Is Belbin's Shaper really TMS's Thruster-Organizers? An empirical investigation into

the correspondence between Belbin and TMS team role models. Leadership & Organisation Development Journal, 17( 1), 20-26.

S:Team. (2003). S:Team. Retrieved 4/3/2005, 23/3/2006, 2005, 2006, fromhttp://homepaae.mac.com/artistrv/s-team/index.html

Saint, A. (1983). The Image of the Architect. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Schon, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner, How Professionals think in action. New York: Basic

Books, Inc.Scott, H. (1964). Letters of Technocracy Society, from http://www.technocracv.ca/simp/historv.htmSenior, B. (1998a). An empirically-based assessment of Belbin's team roles. Human Resource

Management Journal, 8(3).Senior, B. (1998b). An empirically-based assessment of Belbin's team roles. Human Resource

Management Journal, 8(4).Shtogren, J. A. (1999). Skyhooks for leadership : a new framework that brings together five decades of

thought: from Maslow to Senge. New York: AMACOM, American Management Association.Sleigh, J. (1990). Making learning fun : a resource for trainers and seminar presenters. Wollongong,

N.S.W.: John Sleigh Management Training.Stewart, R., & Godel, J. B. (1999). Gower handbook of teamworking. Aldershot, Hampshire, England:

Gower.Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research (2nd ed.).Taylor, I. (1997). Developing Learning in Professional Education. Buckingham: The Society for Research

into Higher Education & Open University Press.Terman, L. (1917). The intelligence quotient of Francis Galton in Childhood.Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative Research - Analysis Types & Software Tools. UK: The Falmer Press.Thomas, R. M. (2003). Blending Qualtitative and Quantitive Research Methods in Theses and

Dissertations. 1000 Oaks, California: Corwin Press, Sage Publications.Thorley, L., & Gregory, R. Using Group-based Learning in Higher Education. UK: Kogan Page.Tuckerman, B. W. (1965). Developmental Sequence in Small Groups. Psychological Bulletin.Tuckman, B., & Chapman, A. (1965). Forming Storming Norming Performing Team Development Model.

America: Situtational Leadership.Turner, D., & Greco, T. (1998). The Personality Compass - A New Way to Understand People. UK:

Thorsons.Turner, M. E. (2001). Groups at Work. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.



Urwick, L. F., & Brech, E. F. L. (1944). The making of scientific management. London: Pitman.Warwick, D. P., & Lininger, C. A. (1975). The Sample Survey. New York: McGraw Hill.Waterman, P. (1982). In Search of Excellence. Sydney: Harper & Row.Watson, B. (2002). MTR-i versus Belbin. UK: CERT Consultancy & Training.Welbourn, M. (2001). Understanding Teams. Sydney: Prentice Hall.Williamson, R. K. (1991). American Architects and the Mechanics of Fame. Austin: University of Texas

Press.Wren, D. A., & Greenwood, R. G. (1998). Management Innovators : the people and ideas that have

shaped modern business. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


Learning Teamwork in Architecture 7. Appendices

7. Appendices

A: Extract AACA Mandatory Skills for Registration as Architect

The profession of architect and its skill set is set down in the AACA Mandatory Skills that all

architects have to be able to pass an examination and verbal interview and complete continuing

education in while they practice to maintain their qualifications.

These skills are,

UNIT 1 DESIGN1.1 To create a design which is capable of realisation, through the

exercise of knowledge, imagination and professional responsibility.1.2 To formulate an initial response to a project brief to obtain

endorsement of overall objectives and concept by client and other interested parties.

1.3 To develop a design proposal from an initial concept.1.4 To resolve a design agreement for authorisation of documentation

and instructions for its translation into built form.1.5 To continuously comply with the brief and meet contractual

agreements through the course of implementation of a design project.

UNIT 2 DOCUMENTATION2.1 To communicate information throughout the course of brief

determination, conceptual design, design development, documentation and construction.

2.2 To generate documentation of a building project so that it can be costed, built and completed in accordance with the brief and time, cost and quality objectives.

2.3 Before or at the completion of a building project, to provide for effective occupancy and as researched input for future projects.

UNIT 3 PROJECT MANAGEMENT3.1 To confirm objectives and conditions at inception of project.3.2 To establish and complete contractual arrangements with all

participants.3.3 To administer the construction of a project.3.4 Before or at the completion of the project, to document

responsibilities and assemble information for future use.

UNIT 4 PRACTICE MANAGEMENT4.1 To establish and maintain an architectural practice.(AACA, 2001)

File: Masters 061101 Final, doc 11:30 PM - 1 No vember 2006 Page 94 of 106


B: AACA Competency Standards



C: The Belbin Team Role ModelIn the model Belbin has distinguished nine different Team Roles, and typical combinations of positive qualities and allowable weaknesses that add up to the propensity of the individual to fit one or other of these roles. The roles are:1. Plant

Advancing new ideas and strategies with special attention to major issues and looking for possible breaks in approach to the problem that the group is confronting.2. Resource Investigator

Exploring and reporting on idea developments and resources outside the group, creating external contacts that may be useful to the team and conducting negotiations.3. Co-ordlnator

Controlling the way in which a team moves forward towards the group objectives by making the best use of team resources; recognising where the team’s strengths and weaknesses lie and ensuring the best use is made of each member's potential.4. Shaper

Shaping the way in which the team effort is applied, directing attention generally to the setting of objectives and priorities and seeking to impose some shape or pattern on group discussion and on the outcome of group activities.5. Monitor-Evaluator

Analysing problems, evaluating ideas and suggestions so that the team is better placed to take balanced decisions.6. Team Worker

Supporting members in their strengths; eg. Building on suggestions, underpinning members in their shortcomings, improving communications between members and fostering team spirit generally.7. Implementer

Turning concepts and ideas into practical working procedures; carrying out agreed plans systematically and efficiently.8. Completer- Finisher

Ensuring the team is protected as far as possible from mistakes of both commission and omission; actively searching for aspects of work that need a more than usual degree of attention; and maintaining a sense of urgency within the team.9. Specialist

Feeding technical information into the group. Translating from general into technical terms. Contributing a professional viewpoint on the subject under discussion.

ROLES CONTRIBUTION ALLOWABLE WEAKNESSES

PLPLANT: Creative, imaginative, unorthodox. Solves difficult problems.

Ignores incidentals. Too preoccupied to communicateeffectively.

RIRESOURCE INVESTIGATOR: Extrovert,enthusiastic, communicative. Explores opportunities. Develops contacts.

Over optimistic. Loses interest once initial enthusiasm has passed.t CO CO-ORDINATOR: Mature, confident, a good

chairperson. Clarifies goals, promotes decisionmaking, delegates well.

Can be seen as manipulative. Off-loads personal work.

SHSHAPER; Challenging, dynamic, thrives onpressure. The drive and courage to overcome obstacles.

Prone to provocation. Offends people’s feelings.

& ME MONITOR EVALUATOR: Sober, strategic and discerning. Sees all options. Judges accurately.

Lacks drive and the ability to inspire others.

ifWTf*

TWTEAM WORKER: Co-operative, mild, perceptive and diplomatic. Listen, builds, averts friction.

Indecisive in crunch situations.

©IMP

IMPLEMENTER: Disciplined, reliable,conservative and efficient. Turns ideas into action.

Somewhat inflexible. Slow to respond to new possibilities.

CFCOMPLETER: Painstaking, conscientious, anxious. Searches out errors and omissions. Delivers on time.

Inclined to worry unduly. Reluctant to delegate.

o SPSPECIALIST: Single-minded, self-starting,dedicated. Provides knowledge and skills in rare supply.

Contributes on only a narrow front, dwells on technicalities.



C: Belbin Self Perception Inventory Profile (BSPIP) Questionnaire Sample Report



D: Subject evaluation results 2005



E: Typical email text to past students

Dear Graduate,Research is being carried out into the impact of a particular subject area “Teamwork” that you would have participated in your 5th year of your study at the Architecture Program, Faculty of Design Architecture & Building by completing a questionnaire using the “Belbin Team Role Self Perception Inventory (BTRSPI) sheets.You are requested to complete the Belbin Team Role Self Perception Inventory (BTRSPI) again and return the results to UTS for processing. As before the results will be returned to you of your personal results. The whole data from your previous test and your current test will be combined into a whole set of data which will be investigated to see if “Teamwork” as a subject area is a necessary part of the future undergraduate education of a architect.You may wish to further participate in the research to see if the teaching of teamwork is handled by learning in a cooperative model of education such as the model employed at UTS or by other means that you may want to indicate. This will be a personal interview by phone, or in person, or by email that you may want to respond to dealing with specific characteristics of teamwork and undergraduate study and its relationship to the mode of study where students work and study cooperatively at the same time.Please indicate if you wish to participate and the mode of response which you would prefer1. Please contact by phone for a verbal interview. (This interview will be recorded) Date & Time2. Please contact me for a face to face interview; (This interview will be recorded) Date & Time3. Please send me a email and I will respond within 1 week of receipt.4.1 do not want to participate any further than the questionnaire.5.1 do not want to contacted any further about this research.Should you want to continue please contact the undersigned and we will arrange a questionnaire to be sent out to you. After you have completed the instructions please return the documents with a self addressed and stamped envelope and the results will be returned to you. The data from your responses will be collated with other responses from your cohort and will remain de- identified and confidential within the data set.“Data will be kept in hard form for 5 years from date of publication of thesis and Research will be conducted by Mr David Springett as part of a Masters Thesis ”If you have any queries please contact the undersigned:David Springett



G: Web-based survey blank questions

UTS Atthilet'.urfr G• abates Coop Survey 20D6

UTS_Arch_Teamwork_Ffnal

Survey HeaderHi, 'hi-? <?„«vey *5 nc .■im-hy'teken by ytuornr* form UTS *rs hove studied Areftitenure.

"re aim of tfos. it. 14 det&re’-.rfc the efotritivfidess of 4 spe:.f t Subject/too c ,*Tei??>work'' tbuyf t at UTS i?-gsromirg the sorrr suiver? ares • - tnr* «?np#?N*tvT/5>a<t woryp;«?“p.

• he -survey rake nnout ‘ U mûte-s or loss The information you gwo wifc sc confident ai and hr usor a? part nrfor {smoter-tr of fos Waiters. Ctet/ee by Davie Spri' jqett. ?«!bt.£«itt3u is vofonury a«d yaw to eoi have is give

yo..r name <?r other retool. d you dd rot *»!»«• to or so Hy -5hts*\.ir:j votn ?»»** survey you g.vc your rnnser? to partiapat? and for the results to he used and p^nuseec n the future.

vou will be aikot fot ae eryei bcerei* 10* *J'- you ouiv have to urovice i' vou have aey tof*»mfcw«. abeux this survey jl* sf you .v?,~r to peTie.pote forr-er r.r yo.> we-? to hr ohie to er t your survey responded.

II yoo hbvti ary Ui.tr t> or ptCbfcms please conaci me.

'ktêrpt.

FJnvtd Spr neert

9514-3355, Ml£-U£-:?2. or Ov eir.c.l dbv;S.*0»fo**U$uts.adu.*u

Next Page > j Page *, zf 40 aviJ S t uc iqettfiufo. t»Ju. au

.‘honr- U-.-4 SK-».*»



J~5 A'Chitae.ii'S G'ad-ates Gzop Tearw.cr*. Survey 2006

UTS_Arch_Teamwork_FJnal

About Yourself currentlyl, When was your last year of architectural study at UTS?

2. Are you working In the Architecture profe&sion/allied industry now?

■ Yes

3. Have you become registered as an Architect? ; ves

’ Mo4, Did you, or have you since, studied at another university other than UTS?

5. Do you recall being taught ' Teamwork*’, specifically The Belbin Team roles and Counselling rnport, ns a topic or subject during your study at UTS?

v*ns

<*. would you be prepared to undertake a new ’Belbin' Evaluation Report, similar to what you were given during study at UTS?

VfcbMo

7. Would you be prepared to take an phone or group Interview? (You wil! be asked to provide an email address and contact under the next question or under the feedback button at tho nnd of the survey. Just Yos or No horn ploaso.)

Vf*-,MO

$, Your contact dntnits for Bnlbin forms or for phono Interview or focus group:

< Previous Page j Next Page > ^2^4

Da vid. 2 c * ingett#uls.«dv. <su

5h0i»e: ?5>l-SS55



Teaching Teamwork and Cooperative Learning>*rnct5S*ng rr^st aoc* wth r:~iv-s rg r i?ra-~tn's a-5 ccr-w-t^-ts a-> part c? a team tn ”earr prnjcrrqCfi s. ~ea-viv^.**; is a* «»*<*»*> p*ft Ct *orkihg is ar- artf&etl.

itc, aêst oitt w.. as< A!»ut team^cr* subect/toax at UTS and teames at the c30fte:&tive/pa;t tu".eA'rr<p arc*

C^'u" r-j»v> *t*'t have Leer- UwgK te; Design, history t? ctî-lruu^ '<«x*tes;ct£) t?-i t *»k yc- to fcow> a.*tfy on he Xpa~ «vor< sun;,ect/topic,

vm» -ray think w<*r sufcjertvtcr'*** -VC mom ••"t port am man tcnmv.crk and Ar nave -nrlt.idnd on oprr statement .♦ espouse at !!•« enp of the Si.'vt*y tot yOw to toil os this **♦£ <vl«t sôjecU they ere

vnu rs- s<ip any gumt on ■?* yr-u conno? rera* fne tea-nwirk sutyertf tn-jr.c or do not rmr* the questions apr.*> to you

Defalt c5rv5t.jp

* t ’1 I SN 3 NS

1. Was teaching m teamwork at UTS - •"effective?

M » NS2. Did the teaching in teamwork assist, you In •' your study at UTS?

N **> NS3. Did the torching in teamwork assist in your . professional role in the workplace while you were studying?

N ;J NS4. Teamwork learnt at the Cooperative/part time workplace was beneficial to my study,

M => NSs, Oo you think learning about teamwork during the cooperative/part time workplace was the best way to learn this?

N '•> NS6, Did the teaching in teamwork at university allow you to adopt rotes during teamwork study you were not able to do nt the workplace?

N *» NS7. Do you think the teaching of teamwork allowed you to think about your future role m architecture?

\ NS&. Have you been able to utilise what was taught at university in the teamwork subject/topic since you have graduated?

N =» NS9, Was being taught teamwork at university ""better than learning teamwork at theworkplace after graduation?

Nl “ NS10. Do you think the teamwork subject/topit was a waste of time?

< Previous Page j Next Page > ^3cm

DavtJ Si'suueUiûti.ttdu.ou

I* !! Ir v v\

b V V,

r v \a

b V \A

r v v\

b V VA

b V \A

b V \A

r v \a



UTS_Arch„Teaitmork„Final

Open Questions1 ■. .f i .If** !• sx >» c i, l,r,*

»;.r*, V.-',".

•«’ v. r:;*r j v-'.j

irirv

< f~qe Kr-if > >■.,« c «

F//e: Masters 061101 Final, doc 11:30 PM - 7 November 2006 Page 103 of 106


UTS Arcn.teetu'e Graduates Coop Teamwork Survey 20C6

UTS_Arch_Teamwork_FlnalYour answer's have been saved.Thank you for completing this survey.

To print a copy cf yowt* responses dick here.

For further information about this survey psease contact:

David SpringettEmail: Oavid.Sonngett^Ms.edw.auIf you wo Jd I ke to provide feedback about this surveyolesse dick the Feedback button oeiow.

Feedback!



Response to UTS_Arch_Teamwork_Final&;u>ul Y»ur#»*»tf currently

Q. When wdfc yucr iut rear ilf architectural clcsiy At Ut S?

Q: Art* you working t,*» tne Anrftitertur* prof* reran/allied irv-iuMry new?

Q: t»-ave you become n»$-*t*red a* *n Architect*

Q: nut ye-o, nr have you *inr*. yfurtied At another urvvermty oeher than UT57

Q‘ yrv,* recall being Mi gbt 'Teamwirk", cper-Tirally The Pelhin Team role* acyl rocnceiltog report *« a topic- ar tchjers etcr ag your *bidy at UTS?

0: ”W«c W you fee (v^tw4s<t to undertake a new ■!5*.*»m' rvnlu.ttiar depart, tumit«u to whrrt yon were given dcavng ysMty at ‘•ITS*

Q’ *«A1 you be preparer? *o take an phone nr gnsi.p interview? (You will he Jn provide on email adcira** and rontnrt u rarer the ne»t rjuerrtlon.ur crtOur tl*e itrcUhack button At live c-ui uf the aurvby. Jcat Ye* s»» No Imre plcave)

Q; Vour cuntac? detail* tor thrir.-i form* e* ?or phoac nitcrvee. ©* lucai croup:

I ijrtrhJny frrmvrork am? CijupereUve Uening

Q; W.n ,n t«»mwerfc at UTS f^fnrTive?

Q: tV<1 ihe iwrhlnj ^ tnimwort nwlM y«u ‘.o y«ur Mcrty at UTS?-*■’-it * C' .i vQ: ftrl Ihe xtArturq .*> teamwork imiY ir yrer prale*«una*l role in the workplace emile you were MuJynj’

Q: Teamwork learnt At the Cooperativc/pict time workuiacer n4i tsenuhviat to my cludy.A ’Q. tXr you think learning abuct teamwork Cotiuu Ute cooperative/part ttn-rn workplace wd* the licit way to learn Uit*?

Q. U-J Urn teaching in teamwork at umveraiip allvw you to adapt role* during kad-nvu itudy yOu were net able Ui do at tire wd-*.olat.«/

Q. IX> yva l*iltik the leacl’vj ui teaerwo**. r onisl you to t nnk abcct you 'ktuie role in rxliiUttutl

Q. ha»« »w been jUt to ctr *e what w*% taught at oulvernty in U < teammrr »cbjectnur/c » *»te yoj have urailvateC?

Q: hilt bttii'ii Uiytd Icj tiwtn* at umvoc* ty bettor 1'ian tcarniiva toamwork atthor oirObu jilt; yuJualiinti

Q: Oo you Think me Itvrrowark eiihjert/roprc wire a wa%tv of I me?

Open Qucstia?«Q: tn what nlher wnyt rtv» you learn atc.ti <v *u»rt been tai^hl Te^mwprk while U,irtvln<j a? IjTTttT

Q: V- J you hdve ar»r ao*itrve/r.<epatrve teamwork capercm** in yoor ooovisrAtive/pa't time wcrfai/aoe wHoh aflcclcc rour *toUv ar ftutk* aIJr Alvii were the main pro* and rpn* »e yo..rr teo^mq teamwork a? rwv-ererty rnrrpji’^vl a?.lb ;rN»>-iing teamwork iti-r nq work either white *si.rt>-.ng Or altvr urailoatiOn1

Q: tn whar way* ecube tnarhing nt teamwork *1 tmiveroiy or in roryeretive/riert time w<v*kpl*re impnooert?

Q, J C.i. 'ior at tiaucw) tw may want tv ««u?ua* yvur w(m*io i about other tabicil area* bcinu relevant to your vj -srit 4(>J practice vf Arch.tector«i ,'youran alw .«ve *b « bMnkl|

(J. t% there ar-p way tluv »cr*«y could Lrb >■ nprovedf Ate tlrrrrc any nilctako*. or unclear uccvtcm* or Uifectionc *|t'teace quote iic-nbcr atul oaye uf s-urvrry>



H: Execl Spreadsheet of Base Data Ranking Questions

£8%I

? *2 - '*4" ^ r ^■”tr-mm ■ *'*(Til •■. P. V- -* JV f11 i -h rs

I! 1V

11 !?!ii innr h SI .1 | f i ii III TH1! i 1 1 nm ISI1III

\s iUsilliis Jill ii 1s X -ff3!*4 i

% i ^liig Iiilii! i£ !i!!S 8*13 -li I \ f ifpfpii’HS Jill!! f1 yii li.\ ■vi$ kz u;i !

z. i &3 mA? * ± SISIJS! u1 mu im hi$H&* JI

rs « <s ~

r5in4 I A

ej? 5minmzdzST

r*:

fiV£n

52

S'<

»vJ

’ ••: *v a

5tf!*■* < •» *;•5

A a tA ^ ^ h m eT <r *•*% <"■> «r< *. <t — o *~t r> *

<* u~ *r wn »n r, r» <r -n

r, rv <r w* ■*

i N ^ V

«* <r C ** «** -n jv r*" -T *t *T -*> ’ *r % st *r f, *r '■ *r •.* Si

2, , 5

!**s •** *t ki*' <■** -* «•*» v.“» <t —• -» u* <r -A -*> C s .'s */■ '"V /» i/t T • > :s i<*

22 «< r, t

I

•j -c s, >;r *r «* <s <- •.* f- — „«? u* m .■% «r r** «r ^ w *r ■/> s .s t<-

> «-? vr rs «r v —• — *T <r *"» -

- * A

— /V “4 .-1

-,1 %* A ,h t* •*; ,*i A (.% — -*t . <? <r <r . ‘T *

~ r* r. •"?«-« — r» «

■•'S -N \ !S i'S A • -

* • ‘ r 'i\itl i 2 S S £ 21 ? S ; 1 £ 2’ S £ 5 S l E JI SI " ? ? ?^ 31 ? 5 ? ? r ? ? ? S S § ? = ^

>< v *« r\ r»» i

^ . * . « . .« r. rs, /*v r» r,

i . . II I ! . .? I. . a 11.............. ^ . . . .1I - •* - s,'2-^ - 2 i' 5 - *, f. ? S: r: X S s S S " " R Q S. r; S ? t? ? ? 5 5 v § r4 ?

S(Lcrc:!;i:i: t • :: : u o c £ : f ......... f^hrr f r ^ ^ ir


'/A?*

*, >2Uj.Data

i n*i

tcir A

r.p:»

nc * <

tn

Documents

Learning teamwork in architectural education