大学生团队学习的有效运行机制与培育研究
|
摘要
团队学习是当前教育改革的一个重要方向,它不仅有助于学生的学业进步、改善人际关系、增进教育之幸福感,同时,也能增强团队合作能力,帮助他们适应当前社会的团队工作模式并为此做好准备。相对于中小学阶段,大学阶段的团队学习研究相当不充分。已有研究缺乏对大学生关于团队合作态度的基本调查研究,而态度一直以来被视为预测行为的最好途径;对于影响大学生团队学习效果的众多因素缺乏系统性的思考,并且,有关的实证研究远远落后于思辨性的理论阐述;关于团队学习的干预研究更加鲜见。针对已有研究的不足,本研究首先对当前大学生的内隐与外显合作态度进行了调查研究;在科学地评估学习团队有效性的基础上,探索并分析影响团队学习的关键性因素及其相互关系,在一定程度上揭示了大学生团队学习的有效运行机制;采用教学实验对大学生的合作行为进行了培育研究。本研究力图使大学生团队学习研究由零星纷乱的状态逐渐走向系统而深入的研究,并为在高校引进团队学习模式提供思路与借鉴。
本研究的主要结论如下:
1.采用语义分化量表和内隐联想测验两种方法,分别对大学生的外显与内隐合作态度进行了测量,以期更有力地解释态度与行为之间的关系。总体来看,大学生对合作持积极态度,但外显与内隐态度不完全一致。在外显态度上,大学生对于合作没有表现出特别的偏好,合作与单干的得分都比较高;而在内隐态度上,相对于自己单干,大学生明显地更加倾向于与人合作。虽然喜欢合作并不意味着会合作,但是这种积极的态度为团队学习在高校的推广以及合作行为的培养奠定了良好基础。
2.采用现场研究,考察了影响大学生团队学习的主要因素,包括团队过程(沟通、支持、领导和搭便车)、团队心智模型(团队认知、任务认知正确性、一致性、团队效能感和任务关心度)等诸变量及其之间的相互关系。回归分析结果表明:(1)沟通、支持和搭便车三个团队过程变量是影响团队学习效果的重要行为因素。沟通与支持对团队成绩有显著的正向影响,沟通的影响力更大。对于团队成员满意度,支持和沟通对其产生积极影响,搭便车则是一个消极影响因素。(2)团队心智模型中的任务认知正确性、任务关心度和团队效能感三个成分是影响团队有效性的重要心理因素。从认知的角度来看,任务认知正确性对于团队成绩和成员满意度都是重要的影响因素;从信念的角度来看,任务关心度对团队成绩有重要影响,而团队效能感对团队成员的满意度有积极影响。(3)团队过程变量对学习团队的有效性产生直接影响,团队心智模型以团队过程变量为中介,对团队有效性产生间接影响。
3.依据以上以及前人研究结果,采用实验组前后测实验设计,对大学生的团队合作行为进行培育研究。通过合作行为问卷调查,合作态度的内隐联想测验,以及学生作业分析等多个方面对训练效果进行综合评价。此部分主要探讨了以下内容:(1)编制了考察大学生合作行为调查问卷。问卷由责任担当、帮助支持、包容和资源共享四个维度构成,经信度和效度检验,该问卷可以作为评价大学生合作行为训练效果的有效评价工具。采用该问卷调查结果表明,对于合作行为低分者的训练效果非常显著,对于合作行为高分者也有积极影响。(2)通过对学生作业的质性分析,发现合作行为训练对大学生产生了许多其他方面的积极影响。如,更深刻地认识到团队合作的意义,提高了与人交往与合作的能力,以及由此产生了友情、默契、自豪、快乐和满意感等积极情感。(3)合作训练对大学生内隐合作态度没有影响。研究揭示,训练前后的内隐联想测验结果没有差别,表明内隐态度是比较稳定的。这种短期的训练还不足以改变人在长期的社会生活中形成的思维与行为倾向。
Team learning is an important director of current innovation on education. Team learning can promotes achievement of students, improve interpersonal relationship, strengthen capacity of cooperation, and be prepared for team work in present society. Compared with team learning of primary and middle school students, research on that of college students is quite insufficient. Investigation and research on cooperation attitude of college students are lack, which have been regarded as one of best predictors of behaviors. Most of the researches on team learning are qualitative, and the demonstration is seldom. Moreover, researches on factors affecting team learning and training of cooperative behaviors are very inadequate. Aimed at shortcomings of previous studies, this research investigates implicit and explicit attitude of cooperation of college students, reveals working mechanism of team learning by exploring key factors affecting team learning and the relationship between them, and carries out the training of cooperative behaviors through instructional experiment. The researcher aims at changing the current researches on team learning from odd and disorderly state into systematic and comprehensive research, and provides idea and experience for introducing and spreading team learning in colleges.
The main results of this research are as follows:
1. In order to interpret the relationship between attitude and behaviors, explicit and implicit attitudes of cooperation of college students are measured with semantic differential questionnaire and implicit association test. Students have no orientation for cooperation in explicit attitude, and both scores of working together and working by oneself are higher than intermediate score. Yet in implicit attitude, they prefer working together instead of working by oneself. Although being fond of cooperation does not mean being able to cooperate with each other, positive attitudes of cooperation lay a sound foundation for training of cooperative behaviors,
2. The research explores key factors that affect study team effectiveness and the relationship between them. Antecedent variables included team process variables (communication, back up behaviors, leadership and free riding) and team mental model (team cognition, correctness and identity of tusk cognition, team efficacy and tusk concern). Results of regression analysis follow:
(1) Communication, back up behaviors, and free riding are behaviors influencing factors of learning team effectiveness. Team grade and satisfaction degree of team members are two criteria of study team effectiveness. Communication and back up behaviors are positive predictors of team grade, and communication has stronger power. To the satisfaction degree of team members, communication and back up behaviors have positive influence, and free riding has negative influence.
(2) The three elements of team mental model, including correctness of tusk cognition, tusk concern and team efficacy, are mental influencing factors of team effectiveness. From angle of cognition, correctness of tusk cognition has significant influence to both team grade and satisfaction degree of team members. From angle of conviction, tusk concern is important predictor of team grade, and team efficacy is important predictor of satisfaction degree of team members.
(3) Team process variables mediated the relationship between team mental model and team effectiveness, and so they are direct predictors of study team effectiveness.
3. On the basis of the previous and the present research, training of cooperative behaviors is carried out through experiment. Effectiveness of training is assessed through questionnaire, implicit association test of cooperation attitude, and analysis of student autobiography.
(1) Cooperative behaviors questionnaire of college students is developed, and the reliability and validity of that are tested. The investigations reveal that effectiveness of training is significant to both the low level and the high level students on cooperative behaviors.
(2) Qualitative analysis of student autobiography reveals that the training of cooperative behaviors increases a lot of positive influence to students. For instance, they understand better the meaning of cooperation, increase the ability of association and cooperation, and they feel friendship, tacit understanding each other, pride and happiness.
(3) The training has no significant influence to implicit cooperation attitude. Results of pretest and posttest of implicit association test are of the same. Therefore, implicit attitude is stabler than explicit one, and short-term training can not change thinking and behaving tendency formed in long-term social life.
本研究的主要结论如下:
1.采用语义分化量表和内隐联想测验两种方法,分别对大学生的外显与内隐合作态度进行了测量,以期更有力地解释态度与行为之间的关系。总体来看,大学生对合作持积极态度,但外显与内隐态度不完全一致。在外显态度上,大学生对于合作没有表现出特别的偏好,合作与单干的得分都比较高;而在内隐态度上,相对于自己单干,大学生明显地更加倾向于与人合作。虽然喜欢合作并不意味着会合作,但是这种积极的态度为团队学习在高校的推广以及合作行为的培养奠定了良好基础。
2.采用现场研究,考察了影响大学生团队学习的主要因素,包括团队过程(沟通、支持、领导和搭便车)、团队心智模型(团队认知、任务认知正确性、一致性、团队效能感和任务关心度)等诸变量及其之间的相互关系。回归分析结果表明:(1)沟通、支持和搭便车三个团队过程变量是影响团队学习效果的重要行为因素。沟通与支持对团队成绩有显著的正向影响,沟通的影响力更大。对于团队成员满意度,支持和沟通对其产生积极影响,搭便车则是一个消极影响因素。(2)团队心智模型中的任务认知正确性、任务关心度和团队效能感三个成分是影响团队有效性的重要心理因素。从认知的角度来看,任务认知正确性对于团队成绩和成员满意度都是重要的影响因素;从信念的角度来看,任务关心度对团队成绩有重要影响,而团队效能感对团队成员的满意度有积极影响。(3)团队过程变量对学习团队的有效性产生直接影响,团队心智模型以团队过程变量为中介,对团队有效性产生间接影响。
3.依据以上以及前人研究结果,采用实验组前后测实验设计,对大学生的团队合作行为进行培育研究。通过合作行为问卷调查,合作态度的内隐联想测验,以及学生作业分析等多个方面对训练效果进行综合评价。此部分主要探讨了以下内容:(1)编制了考察大学生合作行为调查问卷。问卷由责任担当、帮助支持、包容和资源共享四个维度构成,经信度和效度检验,该问卷可以作为评价大学生合作行为训练效果的有效评价工具。采用该问卷调查结果表明,对于合作行为低分者的训练效果非常显著,对于合作行为高分者也有积极影响。(2)通过对学生作业的质性分析,发现合作行为训练对大学生产生了许多其他方面的积极影响。如,更深刻地认识到团队合作的意义,提高了与人交往与合作的能力,以及由此产生了友情、默契、自豪、快乐和满意感等积极情感。(3)合作训练对大学生内隐合作态度没有影响。研究揭示,训练前后的内隐联想测验结果没有差别,表明内隐态度是比较稳定的。这种短期的训练还不足以改变人在长期的社会生活中形成的思维与行为倾向。
Team learning is an important director of current innovation on education. Team learning can promotes achievement of students, improve interpersonal relationship, strengthen capacity of cooperation, and be prepared for team work in present society. Compared with team learning of primary and middle school students, research on that of college students is quite insufficient. Investigation and research on cooperation attitude of college students are lack, which have been regarded as one of best predictors of behaviors. Most of the researches on team learning are qualitative, and the demonstration is seldom. Moreover, researches on factors affecting team learning and training of cooperative behaviors are very inadequate. Aimed at shortcomings of previous studies, this research investigates implicit and explicit attitude of cooperation of college students, reveals working mechanism of team learning by exploring key factors affecting team learning and the relationship between them, and carries out the training of cooperative behaviors through instructional experiment. The researcher aims at changing the current researches on team learning from odd and disorderly state into systematic and comprehensive research, and provides idea and experience for introducing and spreading team learning in colleges.
The main results of this research are as follows:
1. In order to interpret the relationship between attitude and behaviors, explicit and implicit attitudes of cooperation of college students are measured with semantic differential questionnaire and implicit association test. Students have no orientation for cooperation in explicit attitude, and both scores of working together and working by oneself are higher than intermediate score. Yet in implicit attitude, they prefer working together instead of working by oneself. Although being fond of cooperation does not mean being able to cooperate with each other, positive attitudes of cooperation lay a sound foundation for training of cooperative behaviors,
2. The research explores key factors that affect study team effectiveness and the relationship between them. Antecedent variables included team process variables (communication, back up behaviors, leadership and free riding) and team mental model (team cognition, correctness and identity of tusk cognition, team efficacy and tusk concern). Results of regression analysis follow:
(1) Communication, back up behaviors, and free riding are behaviors influencing factors of learning team effectiveness. Team grade and satisfaction degree of team members are two criteria of study team effectiveness. Communication and back up behaviors are positive predictors of team grade, and communication has stronger power. To the satisfaction degree of team members, communication and back up behaviors have positive influence, and free riding has negative influence.
(2) The three elements of team mental model, including correctness of tusk cognition, tusk concern and team efficacy, are mental influencing factors of team effectiveness. From angle of cognition, correctness of tusk cognition has significant influence to both team grade and satisfaction degree of team members. From angle of conviction, tusk concern is important predictor of team grade, and team efficacy is important predictor of satisfaction degree of team members.
(3) Team process variables mediated the relationship between team mental model and team effectiveness, and so they are direct predictors of study team effectiveness.
3. On the basis of the previous and the present research, training of cooperative behaviors is carried out through experiment. Effectiveness of training is assessed through questionnaire, implicit association test of cooperation attitude, and analysis of student autobiography.
(1) Cooperative behaviors questionnaire of college students is developed, and the reliability and validity of that are tested. The investigations reveal that effectiveness of training is significant to both the low level and the high level students on cooperative behaviors.
(2) Qualitative analysis of student autobiography reveals that the training of cooperative behaviors increases a lot of positive influence to students. For instance, they understand better the meaning of cooperation, increase the ability of association and cooperation, and they feel friendship, tacit understanding each other, pride and happiness.
(3) The training has no significant influence to implicit cooperation attitude. Results of pretest and posttest of implicit association test are of the same. Therefore, implicit attitude is stabler than explicit one, and short-term training can not change thinking and behaving tendency formed in long-term social life.
引文
1.刘次林著.幸福教育论[M].北京:人民教育出版社,2003
2.张德江.研究生学习要实现两个转变——在2006级研究生开学典礼上的讲话(摘录)[J].长春工业大学学报(高教研究版), 2006,27(4), 1-2
3.邢以群,姚静.研究生团队学习模式的实践与探讨[J].学位与研究生教育.2004(2):23-26
4.彼得·圣吉.第五项修练———学习型组织的艺术与实务[M].上海:上海三联书店,1998
5.何燕珍.工作管理团队[J].中国人力资源开发,2001,6:50-51
6.武欣,吴志明.国外团队有效性影响因素研究现状及发展趋势[J].外国经济与管理,2005,27(1):47-50
7.王鹏,高峰强,倪萍,陈高明.集体效能信念的形成及其对团队努力程度的影响[J].西安体育学院学报,2004,21(3):103-107
8.白新文,王二平,李永娟.大五人格与绩效:团队水平的研究[J].心理科学进展,2006,14(1):120-125
9.卢岚,王二平.团队后援行为及其相关因素[J].心理科学进展,2005,13(5):666-671
10.周莹,王二平.团队领导的职能、决定因素及有效性[J].心理科学进展,2005,13(6):666-671
11.吴维库,富萍萍,刘军.以价值观为本的领导行为与团队有效性在中国的实证研究[J].系统工程理论与实践,2003(6):19-27
12.曾建华,何贵兵.群体决策中的知识构建过程[J].心理科学进展,2003,11(6):686-691
13.武欣,吴志明.团队共享心智模型的影响因素与效果[J].心理学报,2005,37(4):542-549
14.周智红,王二平.作业绩效和关系绩效[J].心理学动态,2000,8,(1):54-57
15.苗青,王重鸣.内隐知识:战略决策的一个视角[J].自然辩证法通讯,2004,26,(6):62-66
16.沈峥嵘王二平.关系绩效研究[J].心理科学进展2004,12(6):924~931
17.陈学军,王重鸣.绩效模型的最新研究进展[J].心理科学, 2001,24(6):737-738
18.王重鸣,邓靖松.虚拟团队沟通模式对信任和绩效的作用[J].心理科学,2005,28,(5):1208-1210
19.张小林.团队功效理论及其研究现状[J].外国经济与管理,2000,22(3):28-32
20.王鹏,高峰强,隋美荣.集体效能:一种团体研究的主体性视角[J].心理科学进展, 2004,12(6):916-923
21.白新文,王二平.共享心智模型研究现状[J].心理科学进展,2004,12(5):791-799
22.杨正宇,王重鸣,谢小云.团队共享心理模型研究新进展[J].人类工效学,2003,9(3):34-37
23.吕晓俊,俞文钊.员工心智模式的实证研究[J].心理科学,2002,25(6):736-737
24.吕晓俊,俞文钊.团队心智模式的实证研究[J].心理科学,2005,28(1):180-182
25.张小林,王重鸣.群体绩效和团队效能研究的新进展[J].应用心理学,1997,3(2):58-64
26.吕晓俊,俞文钊.团队研究的新进展[J].人类工效学,2001,7(1):51-54
27.吕晓俊.组织背景中心智模式的自我管理[J].上海交通大学学报,2003,11(2):63-66
28.肖余春.建立学习型团队的新理念与新方法[J].人类工效学,2001,7(2):40-44
29.陆佳芳,时勘.影响团队学习的人际因素研究[J].管理学报,2004,1(3):316-320
30.桑新民.从个体学习到团队学习——当代学习理论与实践发展的新趋势[J].复旦教育论坛,2005,3(4):11-13
31.马颜,李晓轩.虚拟团队中的信任研究[J].心理科学进展, 2004,12(2):273-281
32.王坦.论合作学习的教学论贡献[J].课程·教材·教法,2003,8:16-20
33.王润良,李建清,刘琛.团队学习的过程、条件与氛围[J].河北建筑科技学院学报(社科版),2004,21(2):1-3
34.高艳,陈丽,尤天贞.关于合作学习的元分析[J].山东教育科研,2001,(10): 19-21
35.王坦.合作学习的理论基础简析[J].课程·教材·教法,2005,25,(1): 30-35
36.维果茨基著.龚浩然译.学龄期的教学与智力的发展[J].教育研究,1983,(6):71-76.
37.牛继舜.论团队学习的影响因素[J].现代管理科学,2004,(4):43-44
38.牛继舜.试论团队学习的方法[J].现代管理科学,2004,(8):29-30
39.袁军.说精制[J].外国中小学教育, 1993, (5):1O-13.
40.丁桂凤.合作学习研究的基本走势[J].南京师大学报,2005,(4):110-114
41.汪航.合作学习认知研究综述[J].心理科学,2004,27,(2):438-440
42.曾琦.普适性的合作学习方法——小组成绩分享法简介[J].学科教育,2004,(5):23-27
43.曾琦.合作学习的基本要素[J].学科教育,2000,(6):7-12
44.吕晓俊,苏永华.合作能力测验的编制研究[J].人类工效学, 2005,11(2):29-31
45.马红亮.合作学习的内涵、要素和意义[J].外国教育研究,2003,30(5):16-19
46.王坦.合作学习述评[J].山东教育科研.1997(2):33-36
47.曾琦.合作学习研究的反思与展望[J].教育理论与实践.2002,(3):45-47
48.徐小洲,王天嫱.论研究型大学本科教学的小组合作学习[J].中国高教研究.2002(5):57-58
49.马兰.合作学习的价值内涵[J].课程·教材·教法.2004(4):14-17
50.王陆,杨卉.合作学习中的小组结构与活动设计研究[J].电化教育研究.2003(8):34-38
51.洪明.西方教育研究的方法论和转向[J].国外社会科学.1999(1):14-19
52. R.E.斯莱文著.王红宇译.合作学习与学业成绩:六种理论观点[J].外国教育资料,1993,(1):63—67.
53.李海云.团队人格特质组合对团队效能的影响——以团队过程为中介变量.武汉大学硕士学位论文,2005
54.李江璐.团队作业特征与团队类型对团队绩效的影响.河北师范大学硕士学位论文,2004
55.金盛华.社会心理学[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2005年第1版
56.赵俊茹,李江霞.关于合作行为的研究述评[J].天津市教科院学报,2002 (3):59-65
57.施章清,方海明.高师学生合作与竞争意识现状调查[J].青年研究,2002 (3):22-26
58.张智,阎秀冬,杜丽华.三校大学生竞争/合作策略取向的特点及影响因素[J].心理学探新,2001,21(3):30-35
59.高旭辰.内隐联想测验影响因素研究.华东师范大学硕士学位论文,2004
60.郭文玲.从人本主义理论谈合作学习模式下的全人教育[J].教育理论与实践, 2005,25(8):45-46
61.谢晓非,陈曦.合作意识的认知成份分析[J].心理科学,2002 ,25(3):314-317
62.张文彤主编.世界优秀统计工具SPSS 11.0统计分析教程[M].北京希望电子出版社,2002年第1版
63. [美]斯蒂芬·P·罗宾斯.组织行为学[M].中国人民大学出版社,Prentice Hall出版公司,1997
64.张厚粲,徐建平.现代心理与教育统计学[M].北京:北京师范大学出版社,2004
65.温忠麟著.心理与教育统计[M].广州:广东高等教育出版社,2006
66.陈国英.心理与教育统计学[M].成都:四川大学出版社,2006
67. [美]J.Amos Hatch著,朱光明,沈文钦,徐守磊,陈汉聪译,陈向明审校.如何做质的研究[M].北京:中国轻工业出版社,2007
68.潘玉进编著.教育与心理统计——SPSS应用[M].杭州:浙江大学出版社,2006
69.丁国盛,李涛编著.SPSS统计教程——从研究设计到数据分析[M].北京:机械工业出版社,2005
70.陈向明著.质的研究方法与社会科学研究[M].教育科学出版社,2000
71.杨国枢,文崇一,吴聪贤,李亦园.社会及行为科学研究方法[M].重庆:重庆大学出版社,2006
72.陈向明著.教师如何做质的研究[M].北京:教育科学出版社,2001年6月
73.李德忠,于广涛.从内隐态度研究到双重态度模型[J].山东师大学报(人文社会科学版), 2001,3 :19-21
1. Slavin,R.E. When Does Cooperative Learning Increase Student Achievement? Psychological Bulletin, 1983, 94(3):429-445
2. Yazici, H.J. A study of collaborative learning style and team learning performance. Education & Training, 2005, 47, 2/3: 216-229
3. Ahles, C.B., Bosworth, C.C. The Perception and Reality of Student and Workplace Teams. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, Spring 2004, 59(1): 42-59
4. Cohen, S.G., Bailey, D. R. What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 1997, 23: 239-290
5. Katzenbach,J.R. The myth of top management teams. Harvard Business Review, 1997, Nov-Dec:82-91
6. Hackman,J.R. The Design of Work Team. In J. W.Lorsh(ED), Handbook of Organizational Behavior, NJ: Prentice-Hall,1987: 315-342
7. Sundstrom, E., DeMeuse, K.P., Futrell, D. Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychology, 1990, 45 (2): 120-133
8. Barrick, M.R., Stewart, G.L., Neubert, M.J., et al. Relating member ability and personalityto work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1998, 83(3): 377-391
9. McGrath, J.E. Leadership behavior: some requirements for leadership training. Washington DC: U.S.Civil Service Commission,1962
10. Barrick M R, Mount M K. The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis[J]. Personnel Psychology, 1991, 44(1): 1-26
11. Barry, B., Stewart,G.L. Composition, process, and performance in self-managed groups: The role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology,1997,82:62-78
12. Susan, E.J., Aparna, J., Niclas, L.E. Recent research on team and organizational diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. Journal of Management, 2003, 29(6): 801-830
13. Simons, T., Pelled, L.H., Smith, K.A. Making use of difference: Diversity, debate, and decision comprehensiveness in top management teams. Academy of management journal, 1999,42: 662-673
14. Pelled, L.H., Eisenhardt, K.M., Xin, K.R. Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, confict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1999, 44: 1-28
15. Jehn, K.A., Northcraft, G.B., Neale, M.A. Why differences make a difference: A field study in diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative science quarterly, 1999, 44(4): 741-763
16. Neuman, G.A., Wright, J.1. Team effectiveness: beyond skills and cognitive ability1. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1999,84 :376–389
17. Campion, M.A., Medsker, G.J., Higgs, A.C. Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 1993, 46(4): 823-850.
18. Goodman, S.A. Linking contextual performance to job performance and attitudinal variables. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering. 1995, 56(4-B): 23-65
19. Katz, Z. Investigating the not invented here (NIH) syndrome: a look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 51 R&D project groups. R&D Management, 1982, (12):7-9.
20. Jewell, .L.N., Reitz, H.J. Group effectiveness in organization. Illinois: Foresman and Company,1981
21. Morgans, B.B. Jr., Salas, E., Glickman, A.S. An analysis of team evolution and maturation. Journal of General Psychology, 1993, 120, 277-291
22. Salas, E., Rhodenizer, L., Bowers, C.A. The design and delivery of crew resource management training: exploiting available resources. Human Factors,2000, 42 (3): 490-511
23. Schwarz, B.B., Neuman, Y. Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2003,12(2): 219-256
24. Curtis, B., Kransner, H., Iscoe, ,N. A field study of The software design process for large systems. Commu of the ACM,1988,31:1268–1287
25. Peter, G.D., Richard, R.R., Jack, W.M. The effects of peer feedback on team member behavior. Group and Organization Management, 1997, 22(4):508-520
26. Marks, M.A., Mathieu, J.E., Zaccaro, S.J.A. A conceptual framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 2001, 26: 356-76
27. Porter, C.O., Hollenbeck, J.R., Ilgen, D.R., Ellis, A.P., West, B.J., Moon, H. Backing up behaviors in teams: The role of personality and legitimacy of need. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2003, 88(3): 391-403
28. Thomas, W., Scott, P., Tiessen. Performance measurement and managerial team. Accounting, Organization and Socioety, 1999, 24:263-285
29. Zaccaro, S.J., Rittman, A.L., Marks, M.A. Team leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 2001, 12: 451-483
30. Pearce, C.L., Sims, H.P.Jr. Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: an examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2002, 6(2): 172-197
31. Erez, A., LePine, J.A., Elms, H. Effects of rotated leadership and peer evaluation on the functioning and effectiveness of self-managed teams: a quasi-experiment. Personnel Psychology, 2002, 55: 929-948
32. Albanese, R., Van Fleet, D.D. Rational behavior in groups: The free riding tendency. Academy of Management Review, 1985, 10: 244-255
33. Gibson, C.B., Zellmer-Bruhn, M.E., Schwab, D.P. Team effectiveness in multinational organizations: Evaluation across contexts. Group & Organization Management, 2003, 28(4):444-474
34. Whyte, G. Recasting Janis’s group think model: the key role of collective efficacy in decision fiascoes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1998, 73: 185-209
35. Johnson-Laird, N., Wilson, J.R., Rutherford, A. Mental models: Theory and application in human factors. Human Factors, 1989, 31: 617-634
36. Cannon-Bower, J.A., Salas, E. Cognitive psychology and team training: Shared mental models in complex systems. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Miami, FL, 1990
37. Cannon-Bowers, J.A., Salas, E. Reflections on shared cognition. Journal of Organizational Behavior,2001.22:195-218
38. Kraiger, K.,Wenzel, L.H.,Conceptual development and empirical evaluation of measure of shared mental models as indicators of team effectiveness[A].M.T.S.Brannick E,Prince C.Team Performance Assessment and Measurement:Theory,Methods and Applications[C].Mahwah,New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaun Associates,Inc.1997.63-84
39. Mohammed, S., Klimoski, R., Rentsch, J.R. The measurement of team mental models: we have no shared schema. Organizational Research Methods, 2000, 3: 123-165
40. Klimoski, R., Mohammed, S.Team mental model:Constructor metaphor? Journal of Management,1994,20:403-437
41. Mathieu, J.E.,Heffner, T.S.The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance.Journal of Applied Psychology,2OO0,85(2):273-283
42. Levesque, L.L.,Wilson,J.M.,Wholey, D.R. Cognitive divergence and shared mental models in software development project teams.Journal of Organizational Behavior,200l,22:l35-l44.
43. Marks, M.A., Sabella, M.J., Burke, C.S., Zaccaro, S.J. The impact of cross-training on team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2002, 83: 3-13
44. Marks, M.A., Zaccaro, S.J., Mathieu, J.E. Performance implications of leader briefings and team-interaction training for team adaptation to novel environments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2000, 85: 971-986
45. Webber, S.S., Chen, G., Payne, S. C., et al. Enhancing team mental model measurement with performance appraisal practices. Organizational Research Methods, 2000, 3: 307-322
46. Gladstein, D. L. Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1984, 29: 499-517
47. Richard, O.C. Racial diversity, business strategy, and firm performance: A resource-based view. Academy of Management Journal, 2000, 43: 164-177
48. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., Smith, K.A. Cooperative learning returns to college. Change, Jul/Aug 1998, 30, 4:26-35
49. Webb, N.M. Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 1989,13(1): 21-39
50. Palincsar, A.L. Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 1998, 49:345-375.
51. Veerman, A.L., Andriessen, J.E.B., Kanselaar, G. Learning through synchronous electronic discussion. Computers & Education, 2000, 34: 269-290.
52. Beers, P.J., (Els) Boshuizen, H.P.A., Kirschner, P.A., Gijselaers, W.H. Computer support for knowledge construction in collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior , 2005, 21:623-643
53. Slavin, R.E. Developmental and motivational perspectives on cooperative learning: A reconciliation. Child Development, 1987, 58(5): 1161-1167
54. Slavin, R.E. Research for the future, Research on Cooperative Learning and Achievement: What We Know, What We Need to Know? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 1996, 21: 43–69
55. Gunawardena, C.N., Lowe, C.A., Anderson, T. Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1997, 17(4): 395-429.
56. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. Making cooperative learning work. Theory into Practice,1999,38(2): 67-73
57. Lundberg, C. A. Nontraditional college students and the role of collaborative learning as a tool for science mastery. School Science and Mathematics, Jan 2003, 103(1): 8-17
58. Gudmundsson, S.V., Nijhuis,J. Collaborative learning in logistics and transport: The application of 3WIM. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 2001, 31, 7/8: 537-556
59. Delucchi, M. The efficacy of collaborative learning groups in an undergraduate statisticscourse. College Teaching, 2006, 54(2): 244-248
60. Stockdale, S.L., Williams, R.L. Cooperative learning groups at the college level: Differential effects on high, average, and low exam performers. Journal of Behavioral Education, 2004, 13(1): 37–50
61. Vaneijl, P.J., Pilot, A., deVoogd, P. Effects of collaborative and individual learning in a blended learning environment. Education and Information Technologies, 2005,10:1/2: 49–63
62. Hampton, D.R., Grudnitski, G. Dose cooperative learning means equal learning? Journal of Education for Business, sep/oct 1996, 72(1): 5-7
63. Vernon, A. Quarstein, A. Assessment of cooperative learning: A goal-criterion approach. Innovative Higher Education, Fall 2001,26(1):59-77
64. Van Offenbeek, M. Processes and outcomes of team learning. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 2001, 10(3): 303-317
65. Van Boxtel, C., Vander Linden, J.L., Kanselaar, G. Collaborative learning tasks and the elaboration of conceptual knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 2000,10: 311-330
66. Sadler, K.C. The effectiveness of cooperative learning as an instructional strategy. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association (Chattanooga, TN, November, 6-8, 2002. 15 pages)
67. Gardner,B.S., Sharon J. Korth, S.J. Classroom strategies that facilitate transfer of learning to the workplace. Innovative Higher Education, Fall 1997,22(1):45-60
68. Goldberg, B., Finkelstein, M. Effects of a first-semester learning community on nontraditional Technical Students. Innovative Higher Education, Vol. 26, No. 4, Summer 2002 :235-249
69. Bonner, B.L. Expertise in group problem solving: Recognition, social combination, and performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2004, 8, (4): 277–290
70. Karakowsky, L., McBey, K., Chuang, Y.T. Perceptions of team performance: The impact of group composition and task-based cues. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 2004, 19(5):506-525
71. Lent, R.W., Schmidt, J., Schmidt, L. Collective efficacy beliefs in student work teams: Relation to self-efficacy, cohesion, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2006,68: 73–84
72. Robert, L. Williams, E.C., Briana, H. Individual accountability in cooperative learninggroups at the college level: Differential effects on high, average, and low exam performers。Journal of Behavioral Education, September 2005,14(3):167–188
73. Bacon, D.R., Stewart, K.A., Silver, W.S. Lessons from the best and worst student team experiences: How a teacher can make the difference. Journal of Management Education, Oct 1999, 23(5): 467-488
74. Nelson, D.R., Wittmer, D.P. Development a learning community approach to business ethics education. Teaching Business Ethics, 2001,5: 267–281,
75. Jones, D.W. Empowered teams in the classroom can work. The Journal for Quality and Participation, Jan/Feb 1996, 19(1):80-86
76. Wilon, T.D., Lindsey, S., Schooler, T.Y. A Model of dual attitudes. Psychological Review , 2000,107 (1):101–126
77. Greenwald, A.G., Banaji, M.R. Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and sterotypes. Psychological Review, 1995,102 (1):4–27
78. Bandura, A. Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Reviews: Psychology, 2001, 52: 1-26
79. James, L.R., Demaree, R.G., Wolf, G. Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1984, 6 (1): 85-98
80. Baron,R M, Kenny,D A. The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1986, 51(6): 1173-1182
2.张德江.研究生学习要实现两个转变——在2006级研究生开学典礼上的讲话(摘录)[J].长春工业大学学报(高教研究版), 2006,27(4), 1-2
3.邢以群,姚静.研究生团队学习模式的实践与探讨[J].学位与研究生教育.2004(2):23-26
4.彼得·圣吉.第五项修练———学习型组织的艺术与实务[M].上海:上海三联书店,1998
5.何燕珍.工作管理团队[J].中国人力资源开发,2001,6:50-51
6.武欣,吴志明.国外团队有效性影响因素研究现状及发展趋势[J].外国经济与管理,2005,27(1):47-50
7.王鹏,高峰强,倪萍,陈高明.集体效能信念的形成及其对团队努力程度的影响[J].西安体育学院学报,2004,21(3):103-107
8.白新文,王二平,李永娟.大五人格与绩效:团队水平的研究[J].心理科学进展,2006,14(1):120-125
9.卢岚,王二平.团队后援行为及其相关因素[J].心理科学进展,2005,13(5):666-671
10.周莹,王二平.团队领导的职能、决定因素及有效性[J].心理科学进展,2005,13(6):666-671
11.吴维库,富萍萍,刘军.以价值观为本的领导行为与团队有效性在中国的实证研究[J].系统工程理论与实践,2003(6):19-27
12.曾建华,何贵兵.群体决策中的知识构建过程[J].心理科学进展,2003,11(6):686-691
13.武欣,吴志明.团队共享心智模型的影响因素与效果[J].心理学报,2005,37(4):542-549
14.周智红,王二平.作业绩效和关系绩效[J].心理学动态,2000,8,(1):54-57
15.苗青,王重鸣.内隐知识:战略决策的一个视角[J].自然辩证法通讯,2004,26,(6):62-66
16.沈峥嵘王二平.关系绩效研究[J].心理科学进展2004,12(6):924~931
17.陈学军,王重鸣.绩效模型的最新研究进展[J].心理科学, 2001,24(6):737-738
18.王重鸣,邓靖松.虚拟团队沟通模式对信任和绩效的作用[J].心理科学,2005,28,(5):1208-1210
19.张小林.团队功效理论及其研究现状[J].外国经济与管理,2000,22(3):28-32
20.王鹏,高峰强,隋美荣.集体效能:一种团体研究的主体性视角[J].心理科学进展, 2004,12(6):916-923
21.白新文,王二平.共享心智模型研究现状[J].心理科学进展,2004,12(5):791-799
22.杨正宇,王重鸣,谢小云.团队共享心理模型研究新进展[J].人类工效学,2003,9(3):34-37
23.吕晓俊,俞文钊.员工心智模式的实证研究[J].心理科学,2002,25(6):736-737
24.吕晓俊,俞文钊.团队心智模式的实证研究[J].心理科学,2005,28(1):180-182
25.张小林,王重鸣.群体绩效和团队效能研究的新进展[J].应用心理学,1997,3(2):58-64
26.吕晓俊,俞文钊.团队研究的新进展[J].人类工效学,2001,7(1):51-54
27.吕晓俊.组织背景中心智模式的自我管理[J].上海交通大学学报,2003,11(2):63-66
28.肖余春.建立学习型团队的新理念与新方法[J].人类工效学,2001,7(2):40-44
29.陆佳芳,时勘.影响团队学习的人际因素研究[J].管理学报,2004,1(3):316-320
30.桑新民.从个体学习到团队学习——当代学习理论与实践发展的新趋势[J].复旦教育论坛,2005,3(4):11-13
31.马颜,李晓轩.虚拟团队中的信任研究[J].心理科学进展, 2004,12(2):273-281
32.王坦.论合作学习的教学论贡献[J].课程·教材·教法,2003,8:16-20
33.王润良,李建清,刘琛.团队学习的过程、条件与氛围[J].河北建筑科技学院学报(社科版),2004,21(2):1-3
34.高艳,陈丽,尤天贞.关于合作学习的元分析[J].山东教育科研,2001,(10): 19-21
35.王坦.合作学习的理论基础简析[J].课程·教材·教法,2005,25,(1): 30-35
36.维果茨基著.龚浩然译.学龄期的教学与智力的发展[J].教育研究,1983,(6):71-76.
37.牛继舜.论团队学习的影响因素[J].现代管理科学,2004,(4):43-44
38.牛继舜.试论团队学习的方法[J].现代管理科学,2004,(8):29-30
39.袁军.说精制[J].外国中小学教育, 1993, (5):1O-13.
40.丁桂凤.合作学习研究的基本走势[J].南京师大学报,2005,(4):110-114
41.汪航.合作学习认知研究综述[J].心理科学,2004,27,(2):438-440
42.曾琦.普适性的合作学习方法——小组成绩分享法简介[J].学科教育,2004,(5):23-27
43.曾琦.合作学习的基本要素[J].学科教育,2000,(6):7-12
44.吕晓俊,苏永华.合作能力测验的编制研究[J].人类工效学, 2005,11(2):29-31
45.马红亮.合作学习的内涵、要素和意义[J].外国教育研究,2003,30(5):16-19
46.王坦.合作学习述评[J].山东教育科研.1997(2):33-36
47.曾琦.合作学习研究的反思与展望[J].教育理论与实践.2002,(3):45-47
48.徐小洲,王天嫱.论研究型大学本科教学的小组合作学习[J].中国高教研究.2002(5):57-58
49.马兰.合作学习的价值内涵[J].课程·教材·教法.2004(4):14-17
50.王陆,杨卉.合作学习中的小组结构与活动设计研究[J].电化教育研究.2003(8):34-38
51.洪明.西方教育研究的方法论和转向[J].国外社会科学.1999(1):14-19
52. R.E.斯莱文著.王红宇译.合作学习与学业成绩:六种理论观点[J].外国教育资料,1993,(1):63—67.
53.李海云.团队人格特质组合对团队效能的影响——以团队过程为中介变量.武汉大学硕士学位论文,2005
54.李江璐.团队作业特征与团队类型对团队绩效的影响.河北师范大学硕士学位论文,2004
55.金盛华.社会心理学[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2005年第1版
56.赵俊茹,李江霞.关于合作行为的研究述评[J].天津市教科院学报,2002 (3):59-65
57.施章清,方海明.高师学生合作与竞争意识现状调查[J].青年研究,2002 (3):22-26
58.张智,阎秀冬,杜丽华.三校大学生竞争/合作策略取向的特点及影响因素[J].心理学探新,2001,21(3):30-35
59.高旭辰.内隐联想测验影响因素研究.华东师范大学硕士学位论文,2004
60.郭文玲.从人本主义理论谈合作学习模式下的全人教育[J].教育理论与实践, 2005,25(8):45-46
61.谢晓非,陈曦.合作意识的认知成份分析[J].心理科学,2002 ,25(3):314-317
62.张文彤主编.世界优秀统计工具SPSS 11.0统计分析教程[M].北京希望电子出版社,2002年第1版
63. [美]斯蒂芬·P·罗宾斯.组织行为学[M].中国人民大学出版社,Prentice Hall出版公司,1997
64.张厚粲,徐建平.现代心理与教育统计学[M].北京:北京师范大学出版社,2004
65.温忠麟著.心理与教育统计[M].广州:广东高等教育出版社,2006
66.陈国英.心理与教育统计学[M].成都:四川大学出版社,2006
67. [美]J.Amos Hatch著,朱光明,沈文钦,徐守磊,陈汉聪译,陈向明审校.如何做质的研究[M].北京:中国轻工业出版社,2007
68.潘玉进编著.教育与心理统计——SPSS应用[M].杭州:浙江大学出版社,2006
69.丁国盛,李涛编著.SPSS统计教程——从研究设计到数据分析[M].北京:机械工业出版社,2005
70.陈向明著.质的研究方法与社会科学研究[M].教育科学出版社,2000
71.杨国枢,文崇一,吴聪贤,李亦园.社会及行为科学研究方法[M].重庆:重庆大学出版社,2006
72.陈向明著.教师如何做质的研究[M].北京:教育科学出版社,2001年6月
73.李德忠,于广涛.从内隐态度研究到双重态度模型[J].山东师大学报(人文社会科学版), 2001,3 :19-21
1. Slavin,R.E. When Does Cooperative Learning Increase Student Achievement? Psychological Bulletin, 1983, 94(3):429-445
2. Yazici, H.J. A study of collaborative learning style and team learning performance. Education & Training, 2005, 47, 2/3: 216-229
3. Ahles, C.B., Bosworth, C.C. The Perception and Reality of Student and Workplace Teams. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, Spring 2004, 59(1): 42-59
4. Cohen, S.G., Bailey, D. R. What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 1997, 23: 239-290
5. Katzenbach,J.R. The myth of top management teams. Harvard Business Review, 1997, Nov-Dec:82-91
6. Hackman,J.R. The Design of Work Team. In J. W.Lorsh(ED), Handbook of Organizational Behavior, NJ: Prentice-Hall,1987: 315-342
7. Sundstrom, E., DeMeuse, K.P., Futrell, D. Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychology, 1990, 45 (2): 120-133
8. Barrick, M.R., Stewart, G.L., Neubert, M.J., et al. Relating member ability and personalityto work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1998, 83(3): 377-391
9. McGrath, J.E. Leadership behavior: some requirements for leadership training. Washington DC: U.S.Civil Service Commission,1962
10. Barrick M R, Mount M K. The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis[J]. Personnel Psychology, 1991, 44(1): 1-26
11. Barry, B., Stewart,G.L. Composition, process, and performance in self-managed groups: The role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology,1997,82:62-78
12. Susan, E.J., Aparna, J., Niclas, L.E. Recent research on team and organizational diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. Journal of Management, 2003, 29(6): 801-830
13. Simons, T., Pelled, L.H., Smith, K.A. Making use of difference: Diversity, debate, and decision comprehensiveness in top management teams. Academy of management journal, 1999,42: 662-673
14. Pelled, L.H., Eisenhardt, K.M., Xin, K.R. Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, confict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1999, 44: 1-28
15. Jehn, K.A., Northcraft, G.B., Neale, M.A. Why differences make a difference: A field study in diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative science quarterly, 1999, 44(4): 741-763
16. Neuman, G.A., Wright, J.1. Team effectiveness: beyond skills and cognitive ability1. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1999,84 :376–389
17. Campion, M.A., Medsker, G.J., Higgs, A.C. Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 1993, 46(4): 823-850.
18. Goodman, S.A. Linking contextual performance to job performance and attitudinal variables. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering. 1995, 56(4-B): 23-65
19. Katz, Z. Investigating the not invented here (NIH) syndrome: a look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 51 R&D project groups. R&D Management, 1982, (12):7-9.
20. Jewell, .L.N., Reitz, H.J. Group effectiveness in organization. Illinois: Foresman and Company,1981
21. Morgans, B.B. Jr., Salas, E., Glickman, A.S. An analysis of team evolution and maturation. Journal of General Psychology, 1993, 120, 277-291
22. Salas, E., Rhodenizer, L., Bowers, C.A. The design and delivery of crew resource management training: exploiting available resources. Human Factors,2000, 42 (3): 490-511
23. Schwarz, B.B., Neuman, Y. Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2003,12(2): 219-256
24. Curtis, B., Kransner, H., Iscoe, ,N. A field study of The software design process for large systems. Commu of the ACM,1988,31:1268–1287
25. Peter, G.D., Richard, R.R., Jack, W.M. The effects of peer feedback on team member behavior. Group and Organization Management, 1997, 22(4):508-520
26. Marks, M.A., Mathieu, J.E., Zaccaro, S.J.A. A conceptual framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 2001, 26: 356-76
27. Porter, C.O., Hollenbeck, J.R., Ilgen, D.R., Ellis, A.P., West, B.J., Moon, H. Backing up behaviors in teams: The role of personality and legitimacy of need. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2003, 88(3): 391-403
28. Thomas, W., Scott, P., Tiessen. Performance measurement and managerial team. Accounting, Organization and Socioety, 1999, 24:263-285
29. Zaccaro, S.J., Rittman, A.L., Marks, M.A. Team leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 2001, 12: 451-483
30. Pearce, C.L., Sims, H.P.Jr. Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: an examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2002, 6(2): 172-197
31. Erez, A., LePine, J.A., Elms, H. Effects of rotated leadership and peer evaluation on the functioning and effectiveness of self-managed teams: a quasi-experiment. Personnel Psychology, 2002, 55: 929-948
32. Albanese, R., Van Fleet, D.D. Rational behavior in groups: The free riding tendency. Academy of Management Review, 1985, 10: 244-255
33. Gibson, C.B., Zellmer-Bruhn, M.E., Schwab, D.P. Team effectiveness in multinational organizations: Evaluation across contexts. Group & Organization Management, 2003, 28(4):444-474
34. Whyte, G. Recasting Janis’s group think model: the key role of collective efficacy in decision fiascoes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1998, 73: 185-209
35. Johnson-Laird, N., Wilson, J.R., Rutherford, A. Mental models: Theory and application in human factors. Human Factors, 1989, 31: 617-634
36. Cannon-Bower, J.A., Salas, E. Cognitive psychology and team training: Shared mental models in complex systems. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Miami, FL, 1990
37. Cannon-Bowers, J.A., Salas, E. Reflections on shared cognition. Journal of Organizational Behavior,2001.22:195-218
38. Kraiger, K.,Wenzel, L.H.,Conceptual development and empirical evaluation of measure of shared mental models as indicators of team effectiveness[A].M.T.S.Brannick E,Prince C.Team Performance Assessment and Measurement:Theory,Methods and Applications[C].Mahwah,New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaun Associates,Inc.1997.63-84
39. Mohammed, S., Klimoski, R., Rentsch, J.R. The measurement of team mental models: we have no shared schema. Organizational Research Methods, 2000, 3: 123-165
40. Klimoski, R., Mohammed, S.Team mental model:Constructor metaphor? Journal of Management,1994,20:403-437
41. Mathieu, J.E.,Heffner, T.S.The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance.Journal of Applied Psychology,2OO0,85(2):273-283
42. Levesque, L.L.,Wilson,J.M.,Wholey, D.R. Cognitive divergence and shared mental models in software development project teams.Journal of Organizational Behavior,200l,22:l35-l44.
43. Marks, M.A., Sabella, M.J., Burke, C.S., Zaccaro, S.J. The impact of cross-training on team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2002, 83: 3-13
44. Marks, M.A., Zaccaro, S.J., Mathieu, J.E. Performance implications of leader briefings and team-interaction training for team adaptation to novel environments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2000, 85: 971-986
45. Webber, S.S., Chen, G., Payne, S. C., et al. Enhancing team mental model measurement with performance appraisal practices. Organizational Research Methods, 2000, 3: 307-322
46. Gladstein, D. L. Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1984, 29: 499-517
47. Richard, O.C. Racial diversity, business strategy, and firm performance: A resource-based view. Academy of Management Journal, 2000, 43: 164-177
48. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., Smith, K.A. Cooperative learning returns to college. Change, Jul/Aug 1998, 30, 4:26-35
49. Webb, N.M. Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 1989,13(1): 21-39
50. Palincsar, A.L. Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 1998, 49:345-375.
51. Veerman, A.L., Andriessen, J.E.B., Kanselaar, G. Learning through synchronous electronic discussion. Computers & Education, 2000, 34: 269-290.
52. Beers, P.J., (Els) Boshuizen, H.P.A., Kirschner, P.A., Gijselaers, W.H. Computer support for knowledge construction in collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior , 2005, 21:623-643
53. Slavin, R.E. Developmental and motivational perspectives on cooperative learning: A reconciliation. Child Development, 1987, 58(5): 1161-1167
54. Slavin, R.E. Research for the future, Research on Cooperative Learning and Achievement: What We Know, What We Need to Know? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 1996, 21: 43–69
55. Gunawardena, C.N., Lowe, C.A., Anderson, T. Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1997, 17(4): 395-429.
56. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. Making cooperative learning work. Theory into Practice,1999,38(2): 67-73
57. Lundberg, C. A. Nontraditional college students and the role of collaborative learning as a tool for science mastery. School Science and Mathematics, Jan 2003, 103(1): 8-17
58. Gudmundsson, S.V., Nijhuis,J. Collaborative learning in logistics and transport: The application of 3WIM. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 2001, 31, 7/8: 537-556
59. Delucchi, M. The efficacy of collaborative learning groups in an undergraduate statisticscourse. College Teaching, 2006, 54(2): 244-248
60. Stockdale, S.L., Williams, R.L. Cooperative learning groups at the college level: Differential effects on high, average, and low exam performers. Journal of Behavioral Education, 2004, 13(1): 37–50
61. Vaneijl, P.J., Pilot, A., deVoogd, P. Effects of collaborative and individual learning in a blended learning environment. Education and Information Technologies, 2005,10:1/2: 49–63
62. Hampton, D.R., Grudnitski, G. Dose cooperative learning means equal learning? Journal of Education for Business, sep/oct 1996, 72(1): 5-7
63. Vernon, A. Quarstein, A. Assessment of cooperative learning: A goal-criterion approach. Innovative Higher Education, Fall 2001,26(1):59-77
64. Van Offenbeek, M. Processes and outcomes of team learning. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 2001, 10(3): 303-317
65. Van Boxtel, C., Vander Linden, J.L., Kanselaar, G. Collaborative learning tasks and the elaboration of conceptual knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 2000,10: 311-330
66. Sadler, K.C. The effectiveness of cooperative learning as an instructional strategy. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association (Chattanooga, TN, November, 6-8, 2002. 15 pages)
67. Gardner,B.S., Sharon J. Korth, S.J. Classroom strategies that facilitate transfer of learning to the workplace. Innovative Higher Education, Fall 1997,22(1):45-60
68. Goldberg, B., Finkelstein, M. Effects of a first-semester learning community on nontraditional Technical Students. Innovative Higher Education, Vol. 26, No. 4, Summer 2002 :235-249
69. Bonner, B.L. Expertise in group problem solving: Recognition, social combination, and performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2004, 8, (4): 277–290
70. Karakowsky, L., McBey, K., Chuang, Y.T. Perceptions of team performance: The impact of group composition and task-based cues. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 2004, 19(5):506-525
71. Lent, R.W., Schmidt, J., Schmidt, L. Collective efficacy beliefs in student work teams: Relation to self-efficacy, cohesion, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2006,68: 73–84
72. Robert, L. Williams, E.C., Briana, H. Individual accountability in cooperative learninggroups at the college level: Differential effects on high, average, and low exam performers。Journal of Behavioral Education, September 2005,14(3):167–188
73. Bacon, D.R., Stewart, K.A., Silver, W.S. Lessons from the best and worst student team experiences: How a teacher can make the difference. Journal of Management Education, Oct 1999, 23(5): 467-488
74. Nelson, D.R., Wittmer, D.P. Development a learning community approach to business ethics education. Teaching Business Ethics, 2001,5: 267–281,
75. Jones, D.W. Empowered teams in the classroom can work. The Journal for Quality and Participation, Jan/Feb 1996, 19(1):80-86
76. Wilon, T.D., Lindsey, S., Schooler, T.Y. A Model of dual attitudes. Psychological Review , 2000,107 (1):101–126
77. Greenwald, A.G., Banaji, M.R. Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and sterotypes. Psychological Review, 1995,102 (1):4–27
78. Bandura, A. Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Reviews: Psychology, 2001, 52: 1-26
79. James, L.R., Demaree, R.G., Wolf, G. Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1984, 6 (1): 85-98
80. Baron,R M, Kenny,D A. The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1986, 51(6): 1173-1182