amanda santos - undergraduate thesis - april 10 2015

Understanding the University's Influence

on Student Motivation to Learn Teamwork Skills

By

Amanda Santos

Thesis Supervisors: Professor Greg Evans

Professor Susan McCahan

Department of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering University of Toronto

April 10, 2015

Abstract

A study was conducted with first and fourth year undergraduate engineering

students at the University of Toronto's Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering to

determine if they are motivated to learn teamwork skills, the influence of the

university on their motivation to learn teamwork through compulsory design courses,

and what other factors influence their attitude towards wanting to learn team

effectiveness. Expectancy/value and goal orientation theories for motivation were

used as conceptual frameworks for research tool development and result analysis. It

was found that overall, students are motivated to learn teamwork skills, and that the

university influences their motivation by improving student perceptions of their own

teamwork abilities. It was also found that teamwork skill learning may come easier to

international students than their technical coursework, and that more female

engineering students indicate that they enjoy challenging teamwork learning more

than their male colleagues. The outcomes of this research project suggest that the

faculty is effective at supporting student positive attitudes towards teamwork learning

and thus successfully facilitates their development of professional engineering

competencies. The outcomes also suggest that for the students who are not

engaging with course teamwork learning resources, it may be because their

preferred venues for teamwork learning exist outside of the classroom.

i

Acknowledgements

First, I would like to express great gratitude for the mentorship and support of

my supervisors Professor Susan McCahan and Professor Greg Evans throughout

the entire research process. Their expertise and passion for engineering education

innovation has been invaluable in my undergraduate research pursuits. I am very

grateful and fortunate to have had the opportunity to work with exceptional leaders in

the field.

I would also like to thank Dimpho Radebe and the Engineering Education

seminar community for their encouragement, shared curiosity, and willingness to

provide feedback at all points in my research project. I am thankful to have had

access to such a large and enthusiastic support network.

Finally, I would like to thank the undergraduate engineering students who

participated in this research project and the student groups, administrative staff, and

course instructors who helped distribute my survey.

It is exciting to be part of a discipline which always seeks to improve itself.

Thank-you again to all who helped me to navigate the research process, indulge my

curiosity, and make contributions to the field of engineering education.

ii

Table of Contents 1. Purpose ................................................................................................................. 5 2. Background ........................................................................................................... 6

2.2. The Role of Motivation in Instructional Design ....................................................... 8 2.3. The Role of Motivation in Teaching Team Effectiveness ..................................... 10 2.4. External Influential Factors on Motivation ............................................................. 10 2.5. Objectives ................................................................................................................. 11 2.6. Hypotheses ............................................................................................................... 12

3. Methodology ....................................................................................................... 15 3.1. Research Participants ............................................................................................. 15 3.2. Survey Development ................................................................................................ 16 3.3. Data Collection ......................................................................................................... 17 3.4. Sample Demographics ............................................................................................ 17 3.5. Confidence Level ..................................................................................................... 19 3.6. Mann-Whitney U Test for Significance ................................................................... 19

4. Results ................................................................................................................. 20 4.1. Are students motivated to want to learn teamwork skills? .................................. 20 4.2. How are students learning their teamwork skills? ............................................... 22 4.3. How does U of T Influence student motivation to learn teamwork skills? ......... 23 4.4. How do other factors influence student motivation to learn teamwork skills? . 27

4.4.1. Gender ................................................................................................................ 27 4.4.2. Geographic Origin ............................................................................................... 28 4.4.3. PEY ..................................................................................................................... 29 4.4.4. Engaged versus Non-Engaged ........................................................................... 29

5. Discussion .......................................................................................................... 34 5.1. Limitations ................................................................................................................ 34 5.2. Are students motivated to want to learn teamwork skills? .................................. 35 5.3. How are students learning their teamwork skills? ............................................... 36 5.4. How does U of T influence student motivation to learn teamwork skills? ......... 37 5.5. How do other factors influence student motivation to learn teamwork skills? . 39

6. Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 41 7. Future Work ........................................................................................................ 42 8. References .......................................................................................................... 43 Appendix A: Survey Design .................................................................................. 45 Appendix B: Survey ............................................................................................... 52 Appendix C: Sample Calculations ........................................................................ 55 Appendix D: Results .............................................................................................. 60

iii

List of Figures 3. Methodology

Figure 3.1a. Gender Distribution of First Year Sample……………………………18 Figure 3.1b. Gender Distribution of First Year Population……………………….18 Figure 3.1c. Gender Distribution of Fourth Year Sample…………………………18 Figure 3.1d. Gender Distribution of Fourth Year Population…………………….18

4. Results 4.1. Are students motivated to want to learn teamwork skills?

Figure 4.1. Student Interest in Teamwork Development Opportunities………..21 Figure 4.2. Student Self-Efficacy in Teamwork Skills…………………………..…21 Figure 4.3. Student Value of Teamwork Skills………………………………..…….22

4.2. How are students learning their teamwork skills?

Figure 4.4. Student Responses to "How did you learn your teamwork skills?"……………………………………………………………………………………. 23

4.3. How does U of T influence student motivation to learn teamwork skills?

Figure 4.5. Student Responses to "How would you describe your ability to work in teams?"………………………………………………………………………….25 Figure 4.6. Student Responses to "I want to learn how to work best in a team because I want the highest grade out of all of my classmates"………………...25 Figure 4.7. Student Responses to "I learn how to work well in teams because I am marked on it"…………………………………………………………………………26 Figure 4.8. Student Responses to "I don't like learning teamwork skills because I find it difficult and to require more effort"……………………………...26

4.4 How do other factors influence student motivation to want to learn teamwork skills? 4.4.1. Gender

Figure 4.9. Student Responses to "I enjoy learning teamwork skills even if at times it can be challenging”……………………………………………………………27

4.4.2. Geographic Origin

Figure 4.10. Student Responses to "I enjoy learning teamwork skills because they come easier to me than my technical coursework"…………………………28

iv

4.4.4. Comparing Engaged versus Non-Engaged Students Figure 4.11. Student Responses to "How did you learn your teamwork skills?"……………………………………………………………………………………..30 Figure 4.12. Student Responses to "My marks are more important than the experience I gain of learning how to work well in a team" ………………………………………………………………………………………31 Figure 4.13. Student Responses to "I want to learn how to work well on a team because I want the highest grade out of all of my classmates"………………...32 Figure 4.14. Student Responses to "I learn how to work well in teams because I am marked on it" …………………………………………………………………………32 Figure 4.15. Student Responses to "I like learning teamwork skills because it makes it easier to complete my design project"……………………………..……..33

Understanding The University's Influence On Student Motivation To Learn Teamwork Skills 5

1. Purpose

There were three key motivations for this thesis project:

1. To identify if students are motivated to want to learn teamwork skills.

2. To identify if the University of Toronto has an influence on their motivation to

learn teamwork skills through compulsory design courses.

3. To identify which other factors, apart from the University, are influencing

student motivation to want to learn team effectiveness.

This research focused on students enrolled in undergraduate engineering programs

at the University of Toronto Faculty of Applied Science & Engineering. The

outcomes of this research project will help inform future development to the

undergraduate engineering curriculum.


2. Background

Engineers Canada outlines several core competencies that are used as

criteria for evaluating individuals who are pursuing a professional engineering

license (Engineers Canada, 2012). Of the seven competencies outlined, there are

three which relate to the non-technical aspects of teamwork: engineers must be able

to manage work effectively, communicate effectively, and work collaboratively in

diverse teams (Appendix A, Figure A1). As most of Canadian engineering work is

conducted in teams, acquiring the skills necessary to work together effectively is

critical in achieving the goals of professional engineering work.

As an accredited engineering program, the Faculty of Applied Science &

Engineering (FASE) at the University of Toronto (U of T) must design their

undergraduate engineering programs to facilitate student development of these non-

technical teamwork competencies. This is accomplished in part by a series of

compulsory team design courses students must take throughout their degree. While

undergraduate design projects are still technically demanding, they set themselves

apart from non-design courses by their role in developing a student's teamwork

skills.


Effective teamwork strategies are most explicitly taught and evaluated in first

year compulsory design courses. For example, in the first year Engineering

Strategies and Practice (ESP) course, there are lectures devoted to teaching

teamwork strategies (Engineering Strategies & Practice, 2014). There is also an

assignment which requires students to show the team rules, expectations, and

decision making strategies that they have established in their engineering notebooks

(Engineering Strategies & Practice, 2014). This course acts as the foundation on

which students can begin to develop their engineering teamwork skills.

As students progress through their degree there is an expectation that

students have internalized effective teamwork strategies and a desire to learn and

improve their teamwork skills. For example, in the fourth year Mechanical &

Industrial Engineering Capstone Design Course, there are no lectures or tutorials

which detail qualities of effective teamwork. Students receive a single guidebook

which states that "significant effort should be invested in ensuring smooth team

dynamics" (Department of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering, 2014, p. 3). It is

implied that through the submission of course deliverables (e.g. Final Design

Specification, Poster, Prototype) that are high quality engineering work, that the

team has worked effectively. As students are not evaluated on their team

effectiveness as explicitly as they are in first year, there is a greater need for the

students to be intrinsically motivated to want to develop their teamwork skills. This

prepares them for entrance into professional engineering industry, where there may


be no external motivators (e.g. grades) to drive them to improve their teamwork

abilities.

There has been considerable work done at U of T to develop tools which help

to facilitate teamwork skill development. For example, Patricia Sheridan et al. (2013)

have developed a Team-Effectiveness Inventory, which has been used by U of T

engineering students to guide reflection on their own teamwork skills and deliver

feedback to their teammates in first year design courses. For the focus group of

students who used the inventory, 80% of them felt motivated to improve their

performance after receiving the feedback (Sheridan et al., 2013).

It is clear that the tools being developed do positively impact student

teamwork development, though it is unclear to what degree students are motivated

to make use of these tools in compulsory design courses. It is also unclear to what

degree their teamwork skill learning occurs in the compulsory design course

classroom and what factors, if U of T at all, influence their motivation.

2.2. The Role of Motivation in Instructional Design

Bransford, Brown, and Cocking (2000) identified four areas that instruction

should include in order to maximize learning. Instruction that is "driven by the

knowledge, skills, attitudes, and needs of the learner" is one of the four, described

as student-centred instructional design. Students that are motivated will gain more


out of an educational experience (Svinicki, 2010), therefore it is important for

instructors to acknowledge the role of motivation in their instructional design.

There are a number of theories which provide insight as to what influences a

learner’s motivation, two of which, expectancy-value theory and achievement goal

orientation theory, were selected as most applicable in this research project

(Appendix A, Figure A2). Expectancy-value theory states that student motivation is

influenced by the learner's perceived abilities to complete the task and how much

they value the task (Svinicki, 2010). As mentioned above, in compulsory design

courses, students receive feedback on their teamwork skill development and thus

their perceptions of their own teamwork abilities are influenced. The value of

teamwork skills is emphasized through course content as a reflection of the

competencies outlined by Engineers Canada. For these reasons, the expectancy-

value theory for motivation was appropriate to consider for its direct impact on

student motivation. Achievement goal orientation theory states that motivation is

influenced by the student's attitude towards what they are trying to achieve with the

task (Svinicki, 2010). There has been found to be great interaction between goal

orientation and a student's self-efficacy (Hutchison-Green et al., 2008), thus they

were determined to be compatible theories to consider in this research project.


2.3. The Role of Motivation in Teaching Team Effectiveness

Teaching team effectiveness remains one of the most challenging aspects of

engineering education instructional design (Alford, Fowler, and Sheffield, 2014). This

may be due in part to non-technical aspects of teamwork being undervalued skills in

the past. Though changes have been made to the accreditation process and

curriculum to reflect the importance of developing teamwork skills, students may not

share the same attitudes. In a study conducted by Mena, Zappe, and Litzinger

(2013), students described teamwork skills as "complementary" to their engineering

work as opposed to an integral part. Student perceptions of the value of teamwork

skills may not match what is delivered in the curriculum or emphasized by Engineers

Canada, and thus may affect their motivation. Students' lack of motivation to develop

teamwork skills may be what is preventing them from engaging with teamwork

learning tools.

2.4. External Influential Factors on Motivation

The University of Toronto hosts Canada's largest undergraduate engineering

program. The FASE is committed to enriching the diversity of the student body, as a

strategy to develop future globally responsible engineers and innovation. In 2014,

the female and international first-year cohorts comprised of 25.4 per cent and 30.4

per cent, respectively (Faculty of Applied Science & Engineering, 2014). It is also

important to acknowledge the situation of the university within Toronto, one of the


most multicultural cities in the world. It has been noted that an engineering student's

self-reported motivation in university is a factor of their gender and culture

(Besterfield-Sacre et al., 2001). Due to the FASE commitment to increasing female

and international student enrollment, it is important to consider the interaction of

these factors on a student's motivation to guide future improvements to the

undergraduate engineering programs at U of T.

2.5. Objectives

The primary objective of this research project was to identify the influence of

the University of Toronto on student motivation to want to learn team effectiveness

through compulsory design projects. This research project aimed to answer the

following question:

Acknowledging the complex interactions and impact of a student's inherent qualities (e.g. gender, geographic origin) and work experiences (e.g. professional experience year, (PEY)) on their motivation to learn team effectiveness, does the University of Toronto have any significant influence on shaping student attitudes towards learning teamwork skills through compulsory design projects?

To accomplish this objective, an online survey was selected as an appropriate

research tool. The control in this investigation was the undergraduate engineering

students' compulsory design course experiences i.e. all students must take these

courses to graduate. The independent variable to measure was at what point

students were in their undergraduate degree. Students in their upper-years of study

have spent more time at U of T and thus the degree to which U of T may have made


an influence on their motivation (i.e. dependent variable) was predicted to be more

pronounced compared to first year students.

The secondary objective of this research project was to identify how the

University of Toronto influences student motivation, specifically looking at channels

such as a student's self-efficacy, perceived value of teamwork skills, and their goal

orientation. Finally, this project aimed to investigate which other factors, apart from U

of T, influenced student motivation and how.

2.6. Hypotheses U of T influences student motivation demonstrated by an increase in self-efficacy and/or value of teamwork skills and transition to mastery orientation from the first year to fourth year groups. Students who have industry experience will report higher motivation to learn team effectiveness than students who do not have work experience.

According to expectancy-value and goal orientation theories of motivation,

students with a higher self-efficacy and who adopt a mastery orientation are more

motivated (Svinicki, 2010). Prior work indicates that first year students tend to adopt

a performance orientation due to the unfamiliarity of the student's environment while

fourth year students, particularly those who participate in engineering internships,

tend to adopt a mastery orientation towards their learning (Hutchison-Green et al.,

2008). Higher self-efficacy is most associated with the adoption of a mastery

orientation (Hutchison-Green et al., 2008). As a result, it was expected that an


increase in motivation would be observed from first year to fourth year. It was also

expected to see higher motivation in the group that participated in PEY due to their

tendency to adopt a mastery orientation.

Domestic and/or male students are more motivated to learn teamwork skills than international and/or female students.

In terms of other factors which influence motivation and how, it was expected

there would be differences in responses across groups of different genders and

geographic origins. Compulsory design courses are modeled after a project-based

learning framework, which has been identified to improve a student's self-efficacy

and thus their motivation (Schaffer et al., 2012). King & McInerney (2014)

suggested, however, that for some international students, performing to please an

authority is more likely to result in high motivation than confidence in their own

abilities. The implication of their findings is that programs modeled to improve self-

efficacy may not yield more motivated international students. It has also been

identified that female students generally report lower self-efficacy than male

students, and thus their motivation may be lower (Wismath, Zhong 2014). Several

researchers have identified that women are more likely to attribute their failures to

their own abilities and their success to external factors, where men are more likely to

attribute their success to themselves and their failures to external factors (Marra,

Bogue, 2004, Markus, Kitayama, 1991). As it is in the interest of the FASE to

encourage enrollment of female and international engineering students, it was


important to identify how their motivation to learn teamwork skills is influenced

through the design course curriculum in order to better serve these communities.


3. Methodology

A survey was developed in the fall term of 2014 and was distributed to

engineering undergraduate students in the winter term of 2015. This section details

survey development, sample demographics, and data analysis methods.

3.1. Research Participants

To accomplish the primary research objective, it was necessary to select

students from two different years of study: first year and an upper year. The first year

and fourth year groups were selected as it was predicted that we would observe the

greatest difference between the responses of these two groups. The first year group

in the winter term, had undergone only one compulsory design course (ESP I) thus

their motivation could be examined as a function of limited U of T influence. The

fourth year students would have undertaken at least three more years of compulsory

design courses than this group and thus U of T would have had more opportunities

to influence their attitudes towards teamwork learning.

The survey was targeted to students in the first year Engineering Strategies

and Practice II course (ESP II), and fourth year Mechanical, Industrial, Civil, and

Mineral students. These groups were selected as some represent larger proportions

of the engineering undergraduate student populations and because their course


administrators were open to advertising the survey. Within these groups, sampling

was random – which ever student wished to participate just needed to visit the link.

No questions were asked on the survey regarding the student's major as it was

determined not to be a variable for concern.

On the survey, respondents were prompted to provide their year of study,

gender, international or domestic status, and whether they had participated in PEY.

To prevent non-undergraduate engineering students from participating in the survey,

as it was publically accessible, a question was included which asked the respondent

if they were an engineering undergraduate student.

3.2. Survey Development

The expectancy-value and goal orientation motivation theories helped to

guide survey question development and map possible outcomes to conclusions

regarding motivation (Appendix A, Figures A3a-e). The survey was developed using

QuestionPro.com. The questions were presented in a random order each time a

potential respondent accessed the link to mitigate response biases.

The survey was distributed to two pilot groups before releasing to the

undergraduate engineering student population. The first pilot group included

members of the Collaborative Engineering Education (EngEd) Seminar Course

(APS1205Y) who provided qualitative feedback (e.g. suggesting a five-point Likert


scale instead of a "yes" or "no" response option).The second pilot group included

seven members of the future survey sample. One concern highlighted by a survey

respondent was that student's may feel uncomfortable disclosing their UTORIDs; a

question originally included to prevent single students from submitting multiple

responses. The UTORID question was then eliminated from the survey altogether. A

copy of the final version of the survey is included in Appendix B.

3.3. Data Collection

The survey was distributed primarily through online channels: faculty-wide

student groups (e.g. Engineering Society Weekly Digest), department social media

channels (e.g. Mechanical Engineering Club facebook page), announcements on

online class websites (e.g. Blackboard Portal), and e-mailed directly to students (e.g.

first year students enrolled in ESP II). E-mailing the link to the survey directly to

students from course administrators resulted in the greatest response rate. All

response results were compiled at QuestionPro.com and exported once survey

distribution was complete.

3.4. Sample Demographics

There were a total of 149 survey responses, 84 from first year, 2 from second

year, 4 from third year, 4 from PEY, and 58 from fourth year. The first year sample

represents 7% and the fourth year sample represents 5% of the first year and fourth

year undergraduate engineering populations, respectively. The gender distribution


for the first year sample is similar to the faculty gender distribution, however, there is

a higher proportion of female respondents in fourth year (Figures 3.1a-d).

Figure 3.1a. Gender Distribution of First Year Sample

Figure 3.1b. Gender Distribution of First Year Population

Figure 3.1c. Gender Distribution of Fourth Year Sample

Figure 3.1d. Gender Distribution of Fourth Year Population

Female 24

29% Male 60

71%

First Year Sample: Gender

Female 372 30%

Male 857 70%

First Year Population: Gender

Female 21

38% Male 34

62%

Fourth Year Sample: Gender

Female 244 23%

Male 835 77%

Fourth Year Population: Gender


In terms of geographic origin, there is a larger proportion of domestic student

responses in the first year and fourth year samples than what is represented by the

faculty (Appendix D, Figures D1a-d). In terms of PEY, the survey sample contains a

higher proportion of students who have taken PEY compared to the proportions

represented in the faculty (Appendix D, Figures D2a-b).

3.5. Confidence Level

Where appropriate, the assumed confidence level throughout all

presentations of data is 95%. A sample of confidence interval calculations can be

found in Appendix C, section 1.

3.6. Mann-Whitney U Test for Significance

The Mann-Whitney U Test is a non-parametric statistical test which is used to

compare the two samples of ordinal data, to see if their distribution is the same. This

test was used to compare each pair of sample responses (e.g. First Year versus

Fourth Year, Male versus Female etc.) across all survey questions. A sample Mann-

Whitney U Test for Significance calculation can be found in Appendix C, section 2.

Significance tests were computed using MiniTab 16 statistical analysis software.


4. Results

4.1. Are students motivated to want to learn teamwork skills?

Overall, undergraduate engineering students report that they are interested in

teamwork development opportunities, with 70% (± 7.6%) of students selecting

"Somewhat" or "Very" to the survey question, "How interested are you in

opportunities that help you develop your teamwork skills?" (Figure 4.1). Students

also report that they believe themselves to be good or excellent at teamwork (72% ±

7.5%) and find developing teamwork skills valuable or very valuable (83% ± 6.2%)

(Figures 4.2 and 4.3). A summary of the median responses to each survey question

can be found in Appendix D, Table D1.


Figure 4.1 Student Interest in Teamwork Development Opportunities

Figure 4.2 Student Self-Efficacy in Teamwork Skills

25%

45%

18% 10%

2% 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Very Somewhat Neutral/Unsure

Very Little Not at All

Perc

enta

ge o

f Sur

vey

Res

pons

es

MOT: Student Self-Reported Interest in Teamwork Development Opportunities

Overall Sample

19%

53%

25%

3% 0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Excellent Good Average Not Good Really Bad

Perc

enta

ge o

f Sur

vey

Res

pons

es

EXP: Student Self-Reported Teamwork Abilities

Overall Sample


Figure 4.3 Student Value of Teamwork Skills

4.2. How are students learning their teamwork skills? Students identified several key sources that contributed to their teamwork

development: compulsory design courses, pre-university experiences, and

socializing with friends and peers (Figure 4.4). In first year, pre-university

experiences and compulsory design courses play a larger role in teamwork

development than in fourth year (Figure 4.4). In fourth year, co-curricular activities

and technical courses play a larger role in teamwork skill development than in first

year (Figure 4.4). What is interesting to note is that there is a group of 43 students

out of the total sample (n = 149) who did not select compulsory design courses as

36%

47%

15%

1% 1% 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Very Valuable Valuable Average Value Limited Value Not Valuable

Perc

enta

ge o

f Sur

vey

Res

pons

es

VAL: Student Self-Reported Value of Teamwork Skills

Overall Sample


contributing to their teamwork skill development. Characteristics of this group were

examined in more detail in section 4.4.4.

Figure 4.4. Student Responses to "How did you learn your teamwork skills?"

4.3. How does U of T Influence student motivation to learn teamwork skills?

A summary of the results for each significance test comparing the first year

and fourth year groups can be found in Appendix D, Table D3. A significant

difference (p < 0.05) in response distributions was detected in students' self-reported

59%

41%

9%

60%

72%

81%

31%

82%

12%

2%

43%

90%

75%

35%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Compulsory Design Courses

Technical Courses

Arts & Science Electives

Co-curricular Activites

Pre-University Experiences

Socializing with Friends & Peers

Participation in Community Events

Percentage of Sample Reponses

Sources of Teamwork Skill Development

First Year Fourth Year


ability to work in teams. There is an increase in the proportion of students who rate

their teamwork abilities as "Excellent" or "Good"; 83% ± 8.4 % in fourth year

compared to 60% ± 10.5% in first year (Figure 4.5). Additionally, there was a

significant difference found in the distribution of responses to two of the

performance-related and one of the work-avoidance related goal orientation

questions (Figures 4.6, 4.7, and 4.8). In the performance-related questions, the

median response shifts from "Neutral/Unsure" to "Disagree" from first year to fourth

year (Appendix D, Table D3 and Figures 4.6 and 4.7). For the work-avoidance

question, though the median response stays that same, more fourth year students

disagree and strongly disagree with the statement "I don't like learning teamwork

skills because I find it difficult and to require more effort" compared to first year

students (Figure 4.8).


Figure 4.5. Student Responses to "How would you describe your ability to work in

teams?"

Figure 4.6. Student Responses to "I want to learn how to work best in a team because I want the highest grade out of all of my classmates"

15%

45%

35%

5% 0%

26%

62%

12%

0% 0% 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Excellent Good Average Not Good Really Bad

Perc

enta

ge o

f Sam

ple

Res

pons

es

EXP: Student Self-Reported Ability to Work in Teams


6%

35% 33%

11% 15%

22%

43%

19%

10% 5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neutral/Unsure Agree Strongly Agree

Perc

enta

ge o

f Sam

ple

Res

pons

es

P2: Learning Teamwork Skills for Highest Grade in the Class



Figure 4.7. Student Responses to "I learn how to work well in teams because I am marked on it"

Figure 4.8. Student Responses to "I don't like learning teamwork skills because I find it difficult and to require more effort"

12%

30%

19%

33%

6%

19%

36%

24% 17%

3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neutral/Unsure Agree Strongly Agree Perc

enta

ge o

f Sam

ple

Res

pons

es

P3: Learning Teamwork Skills for Marks


15%

45%

15% 21%

5%

26%

50%

9% 9% 7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Strongly Disagree


enta

ge o

f Sam

ple

Res

pons

es

WA3: Not Enjoying Learning Teamwork Skills because Difficulty and Effort



4.4. How do other factors influence student motivation to learn teamwork skills?

4.4.1. Gender

Upon comparing differences across male (n = 94) and female (n = 45) survey

responses, one question was found to have significant difference in responses. A

summary of significance test results can be found in Appendix D, Table D4. Though

both male and female student groups produced a median response of "Agree" to the

question of whether they enjoy learning teamwork skills even if at some times it can

be challenging, more women "Agree" or "Strongly Agree" that they enjoy the

challenge (Figure 4.9).

Figure 4.9. Student Responses to "I enjoy learning teamwork skills even if at times it can be challenging"

0% 7%

17%

65%

11% 5%

16% 24%

48%

8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Strongly Disagree


Perc

enta

ge o

f Sam

ple

Res

pons

es

M2: Enjoying Challenging Teamwork Learning

Female Male


4.4.2. Geographic Origin When comparing students of domestic (n = 114) or international (n = 29)

geographic origin, there was one question which was identified as having a

significant difference in response distributions. A summary of significance test

results ran across these two groups can be found in Appendix D, Table D5. More

international students "Agree" or "Strongly Agree" that they enjoy learning teamwork

skills because it comes easier to them than their technical coursework, compared to

domestic students (Figure 4.10).

Figure 4.10. Student Responses to "I enjoy learning teamwork skills because they come easier to me than my technical coursework"

0%

19%

31% 31%

19% 10%

34% 28%

18% 11%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Strongly Disagree


enta

ge o

f Sam

ple

Res

pons

es

WA2: Enjoying Learning Teamwork because Easier than Technical Courses

International Domestic


4.4.3. PEY

The responses were compared between the fourth year students who had

gone on PEY (n = 48) compared to those who did not (n = 10). A summary of

significance test results can be found in Appendix D, Table D6. Although there were

three questions in which a significant difference in responses was detected

(Appendix D, Figures D3-5), it appears this may be because there are large

differences in group sizes.

4.4.4. Engaged versus Non-Engaged There were two groups identified from the "How did you learn your teamwork

skills?" question, as introduced in section 4.2:

1. Engaged (n = 108): students who selected that they did learn teamwork skills

through their compulsory design courses

2. Non-Engaged (n = 43): students who did not select that they learned

teamwork skills through their compulsory design courses

The responses from these two groups were compared across all survey questions,

to identify if there are any other characteristics common to each group.

In terms of where these two groups learned their teamwork skills, co-

curricular activities, arts & science electives, and technical courses all play a larger

role for engaged students than non-engaged students (Figure 4.11). Socializing with


friends and peers and participating in community events play a larger role for non-

engaged students (Figure 4.11).

Figure 4.11. Student Responses to "How did you learn your teamwork skills?"

A summary of significance test results can be found in Appendix D, Table D7

where a significant difference was detected in the P1,P2,P3 and WA2 questions. For

P1, a larger portion of non-engaged students agree or strongly agree that their

marks are more important than the learning experience gained in their compulsory

design courses compared to their engaged colleagues (Figure 4.12). For P2, 30% of

30%

72%

81%

55%

6%

28%

38%

80%

80%

40%

2%

22%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Participation in Community Events

Socializing with Friends & Peers

Pre-University Experiences

Co-curricular Actitivites

Arts & Science Electives

Technical Courses

Percentage of Sample Responses

Sources of Teamwork Skill Development

Non-Engaged Engaged


non-engaged students strongly disagree that they learn teamwork to achieve the

highest grade compared to a smaller group of engaged students (Figure 4.13).

Additionally, 30% of non-engaged students strongly disagree that they are learning

teamwork because they are marked on it (Figure 4.14). Finally, 54% of engaged

students strongly agree or agree that learning teamwork skills made it easier to

complete their design project compared to a smaller group of non-engaged students

(Figure 4.15).

Figure 4.12. Student Responses to "My marks are more important than the experience I gain of learning how to work well in a team"

3%

33% 39%

18%

7% 10% 14% 17%

40%

19%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Strongly Disagree


Perc

enta

ge o

f Sam

ple

Res

pons

es

P1: Marks More Important than Teamwork Learning Experience

Engaged Non-Engaged


Figure 4.13. Student Response to "I want to learn how to work well on a team because I want the highest grade out of all of my classmates"

Figure 4.14. Student Responses to "I learn how to work well in teams because I am

marked on it"

6%

42%

29%

13% 11%

30% 28% 26%

7% 9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Strongly Disagree


Perc

enta

ge o

f Sam

ple

Res

pons

es

P2: Learning Teamwork to Maximize Grades

Engaged Non-Engaged

9%

32%

22% 31%

6%

30% 33%

19% 16%

2% 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Strongly Disagree


Perc

enta

ge o

f Sam

ple

Res

pons

es

P3: Learning Teamwork for Marks

Engaged Non-Engaged


Figure 4.15. Student Responses to "I like learning teamwork skills because it makes it easier to complete my design project"

3% 7%

22%

54%

13% 14% 14%

29% 33%

10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Strongly Disagree


enta

ge o

f Sam

ple

Res

pons

es

WA2: Learning Teamwork for Easier Design Project Experience

Engaged Non-Engaged


5. Discussion

5.1. Limitations

Conclusions from this research project that can be applied with confidence to

the entire undergraduate engineering population are limited due to the sample size.

The conclusions regarding overall results (Section 4.1) and for the comparison of

self-efficacy in first year and fourth year students (Section 4.3) are still valid given

the confidence interval. The conclusions drawn from the smaller sample groups

were not reported with confidence intervals because the range of error would yield

the results invalid for the entire population. Although not all results are significant in

terms of the undergraduate engineering population, they are informative. It should

also be noted that the survey sample had a higher proportion of female, domestic,

and students who had participated in PEY thus the voices of students who are not in

those categories may be not proportionally represented.

In the questions regarding where students learned their teamwork skills, work

experiences were not included as an option. For this reason, and the small portion of

students who responded who did not participate in PEY, it is challenging to

distinguish to what degree a student's work experience influenced their motivation in

comparison to U of T.


Finally, there were limits to the quantitative research method and survey

language. The survey language did not distinguish "engineering teamwork skills"

from "teamwork skills" in many of the survey questions. When students were asked,

"Are you interested in teamwork development opportunities?", the language did not

directly connect student interest to those opportunities available in the compulsory

design classroom. The implications of this project's results may be limited by the

nature of the survey questions as well. Future qualitative work could reveal more

granularity with regards to the specific non-technical teamwork competencies

student are motivated to learn in the classroom and may serve to better guide

compulsory design course innovation.

5.2. Are students motivated to want to learn teamwork skills?

Overall results indicate that students are motivated to learn teamwork skills

(Figure 4.1). Although there were no significant changes to student interest in

teamwork development opportunities or value of teamwork skills between first and

fourth year, their overall magnitude of interest, self-efficacy, and value of teamwork

learning is a desired outcome (Figures 4.1-3). This demonstrates that the FASE is

attracting students will well-formed positive attitudes towards teamwork learning into

its engineering programs and that through the compulsory design course curriculum

the FASE works to maintain positive student attitudes. Therefore, the FASE is


effective at keeping students motivated to learn the non-technical teamwork

competencies necessary to practice as a professional engineer in Canada.

5.3. How are students learning their teamwork skills?

A majority of the sample (n = 108) indicated that they are learning teamwork

skills in their compulsory design courses (Figure 4.4). This demonstrates that the

FASE is successful in engaging most students in teamwork learning academically

through the compulsory design curriculum. There is still, however, a group of

students the FASE is not engaging (Figure 4.4 and 4.15). It appears that they

attribute more of their teamwork skill learning to off-campus sources than in the

classroom (Figure 4.11). It also appears that they tend to value marks over

classroom teamwork learning experiences (Figure 4.12) even though they indicate

that it isn't marks which motivate them to want to learn teamwork skills (Figure 4.13-

14). These results suggest that these students look to their off-campus (i.e. work,

industry, community, peer groups) experiences as preferred venues for their

teamwork skill learning. It is unclear through the survey results what other qualities

these students may have so the FASE can improve the engineering curriculum to

accommodate them.

In addition to compulsory design courses, notable sources of teamwork

development include pre-university experiences, socializing with friends and peers,

and co-curricular experiences (Figure 4.4). The popularity of pre-university


experiences works to support the claim that students are coming to U of T with well-

formed attitudes towards teamwork skill learning. The popularity of socializing with

peers and co-curricular activities as a means for teamwork skill development implies

the significant influence of a student's peer group on their motivation. This point is

emphasized by fourth year students rating co-curricular activities and compulsory

design courses as equal contributors to teamwork skill development. The implication

of this finding is the FASE should continue to consider more instructional design

strategies which are founded in social cognitive frameworks for motivation i.e.

incorporating more project-based collaborative learning opportunities in the technical

curriculum. Also, the result that students are pursuing co-curricular, often volunteer,

teamwork learning experiences over the course of their degree indicates that they

are intrinsically motivated to improve their engineering teamwork skills. This

supports the claim that the FASE is attracting students with positive attitudes

towards teamwork skill learning.

5.4. How does U of T influence student motivation to learn teamwork

skills?

The results of this research confirm original hypotheses in regards to U of T's

influence and the conclusions found by prior work. Prior research has identified that

project-based learning positively influences a student's self-efficacy (Schaffer et al.,

2012). Compulsory design courses are modeled after a project-based learning


framework, therefore an increase in self-efficacy can in part be credited to the more

prevalent opportunities to participate in project-based teamwork skill learning. This is

confirmed by observations in this research project: over the course of an engineering

student's degree and several compulsory design courses, their self-efficacy

improves (Figure 4.5). This demonstrates that the FASE influences student

motivation by improving student attitudes towards their own teamwork abilities.

The results also indicate a departure from performance and work-avoidance

goal orientations when comparing first year and fourth year students (Figures 4.6-8).

Hutchison-Green (2008) identified that first year students are more likely to adopt a

performance orientation (i.e. motivated by marks) due the unfamiliarity of the

student's environment. By fourth year, students will have had many more

opportunities to work with industry clients in their compulsory design courses than

students in first year. Fourth year design courses also have a particularly

emphasized industry focus: students approach their design projects with a more

mature technical skill set, enabling them to undertake more challenging and involved

design projects with industry clients.

Fourth year students also have had more opportunities to work in industry

outside of the curriculum compared to first year students, through summer

internships or PEY. The departure from being motivated by marks thus may be

credited to engineering work experience in addition to more industry-involved


compulsory design projects as student progress throughout their degree. It is difficult

to isolate the effect of the FASE compared to the effect of PEY, due to the lack of

representation of fourth year students who did not participate in PEY (n = 10).

Additionally, on the "How did you learn your teamwork skills?" there was no question

to include work and PEY experiences. Thus the confidence in concluding that U of T

influences student motivation by affecting their goal orientation is limited by sample

representation.

5.5. How do other factors influence student motivation to learn

teamwork skills?

Upon visiting the original hypotheses, lower motivation was not found in

international or female student groups (Sections 4.4.1. and 4.4.2.). Female

engineering students enjoy the challenge of teamwork skill learning more so than

their male colleagues, and international students enjoy learning teamwork skills

because they come easier to them than their technical coursework. There has been

some prior work to indicate the unique qualities of female engineering students,

when compared to their male colleagues and women in non-engineering fields (Orr

et al. 2009). Female engineering students tend to be more extreme in terms of their

career motivations to choose engineering, which may be necessary to overcome the

social and cultural barriers to succeed in the field (Orr et al., 2009). Thus, it follows


that female engineering students are motivated to learn team effectiveness even by

challenging teamwork experiences (Figure 4.9). This result also may indicate that

men and women have different perceptions of what makes teamwork challenging.

The significant observations in international student responses illustrate that

there may be language barriers preventing students from accessing the technical

engineering curriculum (4.10). Project-based learning environments, such as those

found in compulsory design courses, give students opportunities to work with their

peers and foster a sense of community that may otherwise be absent in technical

courses.

The implications of these results to the FASE is that they are succeeding to

accommodate and motivate minority groups in engineering to want to learn team

effectiveness. U of T's commitment to serving a diverse student population is

working to mitigate some of negative impacts on student motivation identified

through previous work on minority groups.


6. Conclusions

This project culminated in the following conclusions in regards to student

motivation to learn teamwork skills at the University of Toronto. Overall, engineering

students at U of T are motivated to learn teamwork skills. Students are coming to U

of T with well-formed positive attitudes towards teamwork learning, and the FASE is

effective at maintaining these attitudes. U of T influences motivation to learn

teamwork by improving student perceptions of their own teamwork abilities. U of T

may influence motivation by changing a student's goal orientation, though it is

unclear if this effect is more through PEY or other work experiences. For the

students that U of T are not engaging in teamwork learning, it may be due to their

preference of teamwork learning venues as outside of the classroom. It follows then,

that a student's peer group may have as large of an influence on their motivation as

their classroom experiences, if not more. Finally, U of T is successful in serving

minority groups in engineering such as female and international students. Students

in those groups did not demonstrate lower motivation as was predicted.


7. Future Work

To expand upon the work of this project, future work should investigate the

impact of internships and PEY experiences, and the impact of student peer group

attitudes on an individual's motivation to learn teamwork skills. This should be done

to compare to the influence of U of T on student motivation to learn teamwork skills

through their compulsory design courses, found through this project. There is also

the question of how students' self-reported abilities compare to how course

instructors perceive their abilities, and the perceptions of their teammates on their

abilities. All of these efforts may work to answer why students are not engaging with

teamwork learning tools in the classroom.

Additionally, future work can investigate perceptions of teamwork skill

learning across different genders and culture. It may be worth investigating what it is

about the U of T engineering student experience which fosters positive teamwork

learning experiences among minority groups.


8. References Alford, L.K., Fowler, R., Sheffield, S. (2014). Evolution of Student Attitudes Toward

Teamwork in a Project-based, Team-based First Year Introductory Engineering Course. In American Society for Engineering Education Conference Proceedings.

Besterfield-Sacre, M., Moreno, M., Shuman, L.J., Atman., C.J. (2011). Gender and

Ethnicity Differences in Freshmen Engineering Student Attitudes: A Cross-Institutional Study. Journal of Engineering Education, 90, 477-489.

Bransford., J., Brown, A. and Cocking, R. (2000). How People Learn: Brain Mind,

Experience, and School. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press. Department of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering. (2014) Student Guide: MIE491

– Capstone Design Course for Mechanical Engineering. Engineers Canada. (2012). Retrieved from

http://www.engineerscanada.ca/sites/default/files/w_Competencies_and_Feedback.pdf

Engineering Strategies & Practice. (2014) Assignment: Engineering Notes. Retrieved from: https://portal.utoronto.ca/bbcswebdav/pid-4086397-dt-content-rid-22901803_2/courses/Fall-2014-APS113Y1-Y-Fall-2014-APS111H1-F-LEC0101/APS111%26113-2014-EngineeringNotesAssignmentInstructions-v1.0.pdf

Engineering Strategies & Practice. (2014). ESP I: Week 3 Lecture 1: Team

Strategies. Retrieved from https://portal.utoronto.ca/bbcswebdav/pid-4134487-dt-content-rid-22971140_2/courses/Fall-2014-APS113Y1-Y-Fall-2014-APS111H1-F-LEC0101/lecture%203-1%20outline%281%29.pdf

Faculty of Applied Science & Engineering. (2014) Annual Report 2014: Performance

Indicators. Retrieved from http://www.engineering.utoronto.ca/Assets/AppSci+Digital+Assets/Annual+Report+Performance+Indicators+2014.pdf


Hutchison-Green, M.A., Follman, D.K., Bodner, G.M. (2008). Providing a Voice: Qualitative Investigation of the Impact of a First-Year Engineering Experience on Students' Efficacy Beliefs. Journal of Engineering Education, 97,177-190.

King, R.B., and McInerney, D.M. (2014). Culture’s Consequences on Student

Motivation: Capturing Cross-Cultural Universality and Variability Through Personal Investment Theory. Educational Psychologist, 49, 175-198.

Orr, M., Hazari, Z., Sadler, P., Sonnert, G. (2009). Career Motivations of Freshman

Engineering and Non-Engineering Students: A Gender Study. In American Society for Engineering Education Conference Proceedings.

Markus, H.R. and Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the Self: Implications of

Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253. Marra, R.M. and Bogue, B. (2004). The Assessing Women in Engineering Project: A

model for Sustainable and Profitable Collaboration. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 10, 283-295.

Mena, I.B., Zappe, S.E., Litzinger, T.A. (2013). Examining the Experiences and

Perceptions of First-Year Engineering Students. In American Society for Engineering Education Conference Proceedings.

Shaffer, S. P., Chen, X., Zhu, X., Oakes, W.C. (2012). Self-Efficacy for Cross-Disciplinary Learning in Project-Based Teams. Journal of Engineering Education, 101, 82-94.

Sheridan, P.K., Gammal, L.E., Phillips, J., Evans, G., Reeve, D. (2013). A Team-

effectiveness Inventory for Guided Reflection and Feedback. In American Society for Engineering Education Conference Proceedings.

Svinicki, M.D. (2010). A Guidebook on Conceptual Frameworks For Research in

Engineering Education, University of Texas. Wismath, S.L., Zhong, M. (2014) Gender Differences in University Students'

Perception of and Confidence in Problem-Solving Abilities. Journal of Woman and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 20, 1 – 10.


Appendix A: Survey Design

Figure A1. Core Engineering Competencies defined by Engineers Canada and their relationship to the undergraduate engineering student learner


Figure A2. Motivation theories and their relationship to the factors that can and cannot be influenced by the Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering at the University of Toronto. Theories and factors considered in this research project are outlined and bolded in blue.


Figure A3a. Survey Outcomes & Conclusions: Questions regarding Motivation


Figure A3b. Survey Outcomes & Conclusions: Questions regarding Self-Efficacy (Expectancy)


Figure A3c. Survey Outcomes & Conclusions: Questions regarding Value of Teamwork Skills


Figure A3d. Survey Outcomes & Conclusions: Questions regarding Goal Orientation


Figure A3e. Summary of Possible Survey Outcomes & Conclusions


Appendix B: Survey Understanding the University's Influence on Student Attitudes Towards Developing Teamwork Skills Dear Engineering Undergraduate Student, You are invited to participate in a research study in undergraduate engineering education. We are interested in understanding if the University of Toronto motivates students to want to develop non-technical teamwork skills (e.g. manage work effectively, communicate, and work collaboratively in diverse teams) through compulsory design projects (e.g. APS111/APS112, Capstone). We are asking engineering undergraduate students to complete this survey. It will take approximately 5 minutes to complete the questionnaire. Your participation in this survey is completely voluntary. There are no anticipated risks associated with this project. If you feel uncomfortable answering any questions, you can withdraw from the survey at any point. The outcomes of this research project will help inform future innovation in compulsory design courses. It will also act as a performance indicator of how well the Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering at the University of Toronto is at teaching the nontechnical teamwork competencies outlined by Engineers Canada. If you have questions about the survey or research project, you may contact Amanda Santos at [email protected]. If you have any questions about your rights as participants, please contact the Office of Research Ethics at [email protected]. Thank you very much for your time and support. If you wish to proceed, please check off "I Accept" and then click the Continue button below. I have read the information above regarding this research study in engineering education, and consent to participate in this study. ☐ I Accept 1. Are you an undergraduate engineering student at the University of Toronto? ¢ Yes ¢ No 2. Please indicate your year of study. ¢ First Year ¢ Second Year ¢ Third Year ¢ PEY ¢ Fourth Year


3. Have you taken a Professional Experience Year (PEY)? ¢ Yes ¢ No ¢ Currently on PEY 4. Please indicate your gender. ¢ Female ¢ Male ¢ Prefer not to say ¢ Other:________ 5. Please indicate your international/domestic status. In other words, do you pay domestic or international student fees? ¢ Domestic ¢ International 6. How would you describe your ability to work in teams? Select one of the following answers below to complete the statement "I think I am _____ at working in teams" ¢ Excellent ¢ Good ¢ Average ¢ Not Good ¢ Really Bad 7. How valuable is developing teamwork skills to you? ¢ Very Valuable ¢ Valuable ¢ Average Value ¢ Limited Value ¢ Not Valuable 8. How interested are you in opportunities that help you develop your teamwork skills? ¢ Very ¢ Somewhat ¢ Neutral/Unsure ¢ Very Little ¢ Not at All 9. How did you learn your teamwork skills? Select as many that apply. ☐ Through co-curriculuar activities at U of T (e.g. Teams, clubs) ☐ Through your compulsory design courses at U of T (e.g. APS111, Capstone) ☐ By participating in community events ☐ Through experiences before you came to U of T (e.g. High-school) ☐ By socializing with friends and peers ☐ Through your arts & science electives at U of T ☐ Through your technical courses at U of T (e.g. Operating Systems, Solid Mechanics)


10. The following statements below may describe your attitude towards learning teamwork skills in your compulsory design courses (e.g. APS111, APS112, MIE315, ECE297, Capstone). It's important that you do not worry about selecting the "right" answer. Please select how much each statement describes you, honestly.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral/

Unsure Agree Strongly Agree

I enjoy teamwork skills simply because I like learning new things.

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

I enjoy learning teamwork skills even if at some times it can be challenging.

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

My marks are not as important as the learning experience I have in my design teams.

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

My marks are more important than the experience I gain of learning how to work well in a team.

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

I want to learn how to work best in a team because I want the highest grade out of all of my classmates.

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

I learn how to work well in teams because I am marked on it.

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

I don't like learning teamwork skills because I think it gets in the way of me achieving the highest grade.

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

I like learning teamwork skills because they come easier to me than my technical coursework.

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

I like learning teamwork skills because it makes it easier to complete my design project.

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

I don’t like learning teamwork skills because I find it difficult and to require more effort.

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢


Appendix C: Sample Calculations

1. Confidence Level For a given sample proportion, 𝑝, one can estimate the proportion of the population with that particular trait, 𝑝 (Pennsylvania State University, 2015). For example, for a sample size, 𝑛, of 139 survey respondents, the follow proportion of the sample described themselves to be "Somewhat" or "Very" interested in teamwork development opportunities:

𝑝 = 70% To estimate the proportion of the population (i.e. engineering undergraduate students at the University of Toronto), one must first compute the standard error, 𝑆𝐸, for the sample statistic:

𝑆𝐸 =𝑝(1− 𝑝)

𝑛 =0.70(1− 0.70)

139 = 0.0389 𝑜𝑟 3.89%

Next, we determine if we need to adjust the standard error for a finite population size, where 𝑁 is the total number of engineering undergraduate students:

𝑛𝑁 =

1395311 = ≅ 0.03

As this value is less than 0.05 a finite population correction factor does not need to be applied (McGraw-Hill, 2008). Next, a multiplier is applied to the 𝑆𝐸 depending on the desired level of confidence (Table C1). The multiplier is the z-score that corresponds to the confidence level as a probability on a standard normal distribution.

Table C1. Confidence Levels and Corresponding Multipliers

Confidence Level Multiplier 90% 1.65


95% 1.96 98% 2.33 99% 2.58

For this research project, a confidence level of 95% was desired and subsequently a factor of 1.96 was applied to the 𝑆𝐸.

𝑝 = 𝑝 ± 1.96 𝑆𝐸 = 70% ± 7.6% Therefore, we can say with 95% confidence that between 62.4% and 77.6% of engineering undergraduate students are interested in opportunities that help them to learn team effectiveness.

1.2 References McGraw-Hill. (2008). Estimation and Confidence Intervals. Retrieved from

http://www.slideshare.net/bmcfad01/chapter-09-2700209 Pennsylvania State University. Constructing confidence interval to estimate a

population proportion. Retrieved from https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu/stat200/node/48

2. Mann-Whitney U Test for Significance The two samples for consideration are the first year and fourth year groups. In this sample calculation, their responses to the survey question on expectancy (i.e. self-reported teamwork abilities) will be compared using a Mann-Whitney U Test for Significance (University of Sussex, 2015).

1. First, student responses are matched to a numerical rating (Table B2). The rating corresponds to the response position in a list i.e. relative to the other responses. This step occurs before data is exported from QuestionPro into a spreadsheet format.

Table C2. Rating-Response Matches

Rating 1 2 3 4 5 Response Excellent Good Average Not Good Really Bad


2. Next, all of the responses to this question from both the first year and fourth year groups are pooled together, ordered from least to greatest, and ranked (Table B3). The ranks in this case have been adjusted for ties. For example, the first 28 responses indicate a rating of "1", so they have all been assigned an average rank of 14.5 in regards to the entire list.

3. A sum is then computed of all the ranks in each group, the value of Tx inherited from the larger of the two sums.

T1 (First Year) = 6734 T2 (Fourth Year) = 3419

Therefore, Tx = 6734

4. The value of nx is the number in the sample which produces the value of Tx

n1 (First Year) = 84 n2 (Fourth Year) = 58

Therefore, nx = 84

5. A U-value is computed:

𝑈 = 𝑛!𝑛! +𝑛!(𝑛! + 1)

2 − 𝑇! = 1708

6. For sample sizes where n > 20, as in the case for this example a p-value can be computed for U using the normal distribution approximation.

𝑧 =𝑈 − 𝑛!𝑛!2

𝑛!𝑛!(𝑛! + 𝑛! + 1)12

=728

240.952 = 3.02

7. A z-score of 3.02 on a standard normal distribution corresponds to a

probability of 0.0013 or 0.13%, which is less than the 0.05 or 5% required for statistical significance.

8. Therefor, there is a statistically significant difference between the responses of the first year and fourth year groups to the question on self-reported teamwork abilities.

2.1 References


University of Sussex. The Mann-Whitney Test. Retrieved from http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/grahamh/RM1web/MannWhitneyHandout%202011.pdf


Table C3. Ordering and Rank of All Responses to Expectancy Question

Year Rating Rank Year Rating Rank Year Rating Rank Year Rating Rank 1 1 14.5 1 2 65.5 4 2 65.5 1 3 120.5

1 1 14.5 1 2 65.5 4 2 65.5 1 3 120.5

1 1 14.5 1 2 65.5 4 2 65.5 1 3 120.5 1 1 14.5 1 2 65.5 4 2 65.5 1 3 120.5

1 1 14.5 1 2 65.5 4 2 65.5 1 3 120.5 1 1 14.5 1 2 65.5 4 2 65.5 1 3 120.5

1 1 14.5 1 2 65.5 4 2 65.5 1 3 120.5 1 1 14.5 1 2 65.5 4 2 65.5 1 3 120.5

1 1 14.5 1 2 65.5 4 2 65.5 1 3 120.5

1 1 14.5 1 2 65.5 4 2 65.5 1 3 120.5 1 1 14.5 1 2 65.5 4 2 65.5 1 3 120.5

1 1 14.5 1 2 65.5 4 2 65.5 1 3 120.5 1 1 14.5 1 2 65.5 4 2 65.5 1 3 120.5

4 1 14.5 1 2 65.5 4 2 65.5 1 3 120.5

4 1 14.5 1 2 65.5 4 2 65.5 1 3 120.5 4 1 14.5 1 2 65.5 4 2 65.5 1 3 120.5

4 1 14.5 1 2 65.5 4 2 65.5 1 3 120.5 4 1 14.5 1 2 65.5 4 2 65.5 1 3 120.5

4 1 14.5 1 2 65.5 4 2 65.5 1 3 120.5 4 1 14.5 1 2 65.5 4 2 65.5 1 3 120.5

4 1 14.5 1 2 65.5 4 2 65.5 1 3 120.5

4 1 14.5 1 2 65.5 4 2 65.5 1 3 120.5 4 1 14.5 1 2 65.5 4 2 65.5 1 3 120.5

4 1 14.5 1 2 65.5 4 2 65.5 4 3 120.5 4 1 14.5 1 2 65.5 4 2 65.5 4 3 120.5

4 1 14.5 1 2 65.5 4 2 65.5 4 3 120.5

4 1 14.5 1 2 65.5 4 2 65.5 4 3 120.5 4 1 14.5 1 2 65.5 4 2 65.5 4 3 120.5

1 2 65.5 1 2 65.5 4 2 65.5 4 3 120.5 1 2 65.5 1 2 65.5 4 2 65.5 4 3 120.5

1 2 65.5 4 2 65.5 1 3 120.5 1 4 140.5

1 2 65.5 4 2 65.5 1 3 120.5 1 4 140.5 1 2 65.5 4 2 65.5 1 3 120.5 1 4 140.5

1 2 65.5 4 2 65.5 1 3 120.5 1 4 140.5 1 2 65.5 4 2 65.5 1 3 120.5

1 2 65.5 4 2 65.5 1 3 120.5


Appendix D: Results

Figure D1a. Geographic Origin of First

Year Sample Figure D1b. Geographic Origin of First

Year Population Z

Figure D1c. Geographic Origin of

Fourth Year Sample Figure D1d. Geographic Origin of Fourth

Year Population

Dom. 64

75%

Int. 21

25%

First Year Sample: Status

Dom. 825 67%

Int. 404 33%

First Year Population: Status

Dom. 50

86%

Int. 8

14%

Fourth Year Sample: Status

Dom. 846 78%

Int. 233 22%

Fourth Year Population: Status


Figure D2a. Fourth Year Sample who

have Participated in PEY Figure D2b. Fourth Year Population who

have Participated in PEY Table D1. Overall Median Responses to Survey Questions

Code Question Median Response

EXP How would you describe your ability to work in teams? Select on of the answers below to complete the statement "I think I am ______at working in teams"

Good

VAL How valuable is developing teamwork skills to you? Valuable

MOT How interested are you in opportunities that help you develop your teamwork skills?

Somewhat

M1 I enjoy teamwork skills simply because I like learning new things.

Neutral/Unsure

M2 I enjoy learning teamwork skills even if at some times it can be challenging.

Agree

M3 My marks are not as important as the learning experience I have in my design teams.

Neutral/Unsure

P1 My marks are more important than the experience I gain of learning how to work well in a team.

Neutral/Unsure

Yes 48

83%

No 10

17%

Fourth Year Sample: PEY

Yes 672 62%

No 407 38%

Fourth Year Population: PEY


Code Question Median Response

P2 I want to learn how to work best in a team because I want the highest grade out of all of my classmates.

Disagree

P3 I learn how to work well in teams because I am marked on it.

Neutral/Unsure

P4 I don't like learning teamwork skills because I think it gets in the way of me achieving the highest grade.

Disagree

WA1 I like learning teamwork skills because they come easier to me than my technical coursework.

Neutral/Unsure

WA2 I like learning teamwork skills because it makes it easier to complete my design project.

Agree

WA3 I don’t like learning teamwork skills because I find it difficult and to require more effort.

Disagree

Table D2. Numerical Response Legend Numerical Value to Response Mapping Question 1 2 3 4 5 EXP Excellent Good Average Not

Good Really Bad

VAL Very Valuable

Valuable Average Value Limited Value

Not Valuable

MOT Very Somewhat Neutral/Unsure Very Little

Not at All

M1, M2, M3, P1, P2, P3, P4, WA1, WA2, WA3

Strongly Disagree


Table D3. Summary of Significance Test Results for First versus Fourth Year Responses. See Table D2 for Numerical Response Legend. Significant results (p < 0.05) have been highlighted.


Median Response Question First Year Fourth Year p EXP 2 2 0.001 VAL 2 2 0.830 MOT 2 2 0.503 M1 3 3 0.656 M2 4 4 0.185 M3 3 3 0.534 P1 3 3 0.382 P2 3 2 0.001 P3 3 2 0.041 P4 2 2 0.341 WA1 3 3 0.499 WA2 4 4 0.697 WA3 2 2 0.038

Table D4. Summary of Significance Test Results for Male versus Female Responses. See Table D2 for Numerical Response Legend. Significant results (p < 0.05) have been highlighted.

Median Response Question Female Male p EXP 2 2 0.700 VAL 2 2 0.098 MOT 2 2 0.079 M1 4 3 0.056 M2 4 4 0.016 M3 3 3 0.497 P1 3 3 0.896 P2 2 3 0.784 P3 3 2 0.051 P4 2 2 0.284 WA1 3 3 0.147 WA2 4 4 0.169 WA3 2 2 0.610


Table D5. Summary of Significance Test Results for International versus Domestic Student Responses. See Table D2 for Numerical Response Legend. Significant results (p < 0.05) have been highlighted.

Median Response Question International Domestic p

EXP 2 2 0.554 VAL 2 2 0.097 MOT 2 2 0.153 M1 3.5 3 0.361 M2 4 4 0.121 M3 3 3 0.433 P1 3 3 0.508 P2 2 3 0.486 P3 3 3 0.436 P4 2 2 0.639 WA1 3.5 3 0.003 WA2 4 4 0.356 WA3 2 2 0.857

Table D6. Summary of Significance Test Results for PEY versus non PEY Students. See Table D2 for Numerical Response Legend. Significant results (p < 0.05) have been highlighted.

Median Response

Question PEY No PEY p

EXP 2 2 0.811 VAL 2 2 0.973 MOT 2 2 0.487 M1 3.5 3 0.789 M2 4 4 0.501 M3 3 3 0.050 P1 3 3 0.183 P2 2 2 0.237 P3 2 1.5 0.121 P4 2 1.5 0.010


Median Response

Question PEY No PEY p

WA1 3 3.5 0.323 WA2 4 4 0.003 WA3 2 2 0.067

Figure D3. Student Responses to "My marks are not as important as the learning experience gained in my design teams"

0%

20%

40%

10%

30%

13%

35% 31%

15% 6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Strongly Disagree


Perc

enta

ge o

f Stu

dent

Res

pons

es

M3: Learning Experience in Teams More Important Than Marks

No PEY PEY


Figure D4. Student Responses to "I learn teamwork skills because I am marked on

it"

Figure D5. Student Responses to "I like learning teamwork skills because it makes it

easier to complete my design project"

50%

10%

30%

10%

0%

13%

42%

23% 19%

4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Strongly Disagree


Perc

enta

ge o

f Stu

dent

Res

pons

es

P3: Learning Teamwork for Marks

No PEY PEY

0% 0% 0%

60%

40%

6% 13%

27%

44%

10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Strongly Disagree


Perc

enta

ge o

f Stu

dent

Res

pons

es

WA2: Learning Teamwork for Easier Design Project Experience

No PEY PEY


Table D7. Summary of Significance Test Results for Engaged versus Non-Engaged Students. See Table D2 for Numerical Response Legend. Significant results (p < 0.05) have been highlighted.

Median Response

Question Engaged Not Engaged p

EXP 2 2 0.910 VAL 2 2 0.056 MOT 2 2 0.096 M1 3 3 0.123 M2 4 4 0.063 M3 3 2 0.378 P1 3 4 0.005 P2 3 2 0.022 P3 3 2 0.003 P4 2 2 0.225 WA1 3 3 0.281 WA2 4 3 0.003 WA3 2 2 0.967