Education Journal, Vol. 2, Issue 1, Mar  2019, Pages 12-20; DOI: 10.31058/ 10.31058/

Exploring the Effect of Different Team Compositions on Team Motivation, Student Satisfaction and Performance in Team Practical Activities

, Vol. 2, Issue 1, Mar  2019, Pages 12-20.

DOI: 10.31058/

Pedro J.M. Moreta 1 , Susana Lopez-Querol 2*

1 College of Engineering, Design and Physical Sciences, Brunel University, London, England

2 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University College London, London, England

Received: 7 March 2019; Accepted: 5 April 2019; Published: 15 April 2019

Full-Text HTML | Download PDF | Views 233 | Download 140


The main source of diversity in engineering education usually is the distinct level of motivation, which sometimes causes lack of engagement. Working in motivated teams is likely to enhance the overall performance of the whole group. The aim of this paper is to find the best composition of teams in practical activities proposed in the classroom for engineering students to enhance team motivation. The experience with a group of Civil Engineering students at the University of West London is presented as a case study. This group was very diverse in the level of individual motivation. In this experiment, the whole group was split in two subgroups, and each one divided in teams of 3 people. For one of the subgroups, the distribution in teams was forced by the lecturer, while for the second one the students were allowed to freely distribute themselves. All teams were requested to solve a practical activity, consisting of the classification of several soils according to three different systems, based on experimental data equally provided to all the students. The different results obtained for both configurations of teams show an overall better performance for the “forced” composition, with a higher level of student satisfaction on the activity and on their achieved learning.


Team Motivation, Engineering Education, Teaching Methods


© 2017 by the authors. Licensee International Technology and Science Press Limited. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


[1] Bernold, L. Paradigm shift in construction education is vital for the future of our profession. Journal of Construction Engineering Management, 131(5), 2005, 533-539, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:5(533).
[2] Baillie, C.; Fitzgerald, G. Motivation and attrition in engineering students. European Journal of Engineering Education, 25(2), 2000, 145-155, DOI: 10.1080/030437900308544.
[3] Clark, R.E. Research-tested team motivation strategies. Performance Improvement, 44(1), 2007, 13-16, DOI: 10.1002/pfi.4140440107.
[4] Zaccaro, S.J.; Rittman, A.; Marks, M.A. Team leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 2001, 12, 451-483.
[5] Swanson, A. Undergraduate origins and performance. Internal report, Imperial College, 1994, January.
[6] Baillie, C. Addressing first year issues in engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 1998, 23(4), 453-464, DOI: 10.1080/03043799808923524.
[7] Astin, W. Student involvement: a developmental theory for Higher Education. Journal of College Student Development, 1999, 40, 518-529.
[8] Rosenshine, B. Teaching functions in instructional programs. National Institute of Education’s National Invitational Conference on Research on Teaching: Implications for Practice, Washington, DC, 1982.
[9] Ahern, A. A case study: Problem-based learning for civil engineering students in transportation courses. European Journal of Engineering Education, 2010, 35(1), 109-116, DOI: 10.1080/03043790903497328.
[10] Delson, N.J. Increasing team motivation in engineering design courses. International Journal of Engineering Education, 2001, 17(4 and 5), 359-366.
[11] Bell, S. Project-Based Learning for the 21st Century: Skills for the Future. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 2010, 83(2), 39-43, DOI: 10.1080/00098650903505415.
[12] Woods, D. Helping your students gain the most from PBL. 2nd Asia-Pacific Conference on PBL (Plenary presentation), 1991.
[13] Walters, R.C.; Sirotiak, T. Assessing the effect of project based learning on leadership abilities and communication skills. 47th ASC Annual International Conference Proceedings, 2011.
[14] Lopez-Querol, S.; Sanchez-Cambronero, S.; Rivas, A.; Garmendia, M. Improving civil engineering education: Transportation Geotechnics taught through Project Based Learning methodologies. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 2015, 141(1), 04014007, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000212.
[15] Carson, L.E.; Sullivan, J.F. Hands-on engineering: learning by doing in the integrated teaching and learning program. International Journal of Engineering Education, 1999, 15(1), 20-31.
[16] Martinazzi, R. Team centered grading system based primarily on the teams performance. Proceedings of the 1997 27th Annual Conference on Frontiers in Education. Part 1 (of 3), Pittsburgh, PA, USA; 5 November 1997 through 8 November 1997; Code 47760, 1, 1997, pp. 43-47.
[17] Davis, M.; Trevisan, R.; Gerlik, H.; Davis, J. McCormack, S. Beyerlein, P. Thompson, S. Howe and P. Leiffer, (2010) Assessing team member citizenship in capstone engineering design courses, International Journal of Engineering Education, 2010, 26(4), 771-783.