Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39552012›Full record

ReviewFEBS open bio2025

Making teamwork work: enhancing teamwork and assessment in higher education.

Nigel Francis, Connie Pritchard, Zoe Prytherch, Stephen Rutherford

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in FEBS open bio, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Nigel FrancisSchool of Biosciences, Cardiff University, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4706-4795
Connie PritchardSchool of Biosciences, Cardiff University, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-8127-0970
Zoe PrytherchSchool of Biosciences, Cardiff University, UK.
Stephen RutherfordSchool of Biosciences, Cardiff University, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5572-8854

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ability to work in teams is one of the most sought-after graduate skills by employers. However, team-based learning activities, and especially team-based assessments, are commonly disliked (even actively avoided) by students. Team-based assessments are often problematic for students, mostly due to logistical problems and interpersonal difficulties. These difficulties often lead to dissatisfaction with the process and poor satisfaction responses in quality assessments of their teaching. This review takes a four-way approach to evaluate current approaches to team assessment aimed at enhancing student engagement, satisfaction and learning gain. Firstly, we identify why team-based activity is so important to include in our overall pedagogy in Higher Education. Secondly, we examine evidence from the literature on students' reactions to team-based activities (especially focusing on assessment) and the reasons for both positive and negative perceptions. The third focus is on identifying the root of the problem from a pedagogic perspective and highlighting the deficiencies in approaches to team-based activities that might lead to negative student perceptions. Finally, we discuss examples from the literature of where team-based learning and assessment activities have been successful. Approaches to team-based activities need to be more proactive and supportive so that students understand the dynamics of teams, how to plan team-based activities, and how to deal with interpersonal issues positively and productively. Team-based learning is arguably the least well-taught element of our curricula, yet it is important and straightforward to address.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorGroup ProcessesHumansLearningStudentsassessmentcollaborative learninggroup‐based assessmentgroupworkteam‐based assessmentteamwork

Identifiers

PMID39552012
PMCPMC11705465

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.