We found 37 results that contain "iah-udl"

This week, we are featuring Norman Scheel, a Research Associate in MSU’s Department of Radiology Cognitive Imaging Research Center. Norman was recognized via iteach.msu.edu's Thank and Educator Initiative! We encourage MSU community members to nominate high-impact Spartan educators (via our Thank an Educator form) regularly!
Read more about Norman’s perspectives below. #iteachmsu's questions are bolded below, followed by their responses!

You were recognized via the Thank an Educator Initiative. In one word, what does being an educator mean to you? Share with me what this word/quality looks like in your practice? (Have your ideas on this changed over time? If so, how?) 
The word would be “rewarding”. For me, teaching and learning is a two-way street and no matter in which direction you are driving, it is always an investment in the future and there is always traffic in both ways. Above all, I want to set up my students for success. As a teacher, I see myself as a conductor to help my students achieve their personal goals and as a role model who possibly has a substantial influence on the future of my students. So, seeing my students excel is highly rewarding, but I am also learning so much from my students, every day, which is also immensely rewarding.
Tell me more about your educational “setting.” This can include, but not limited to departmental affiliations, community connections, co-instructors, and students. (AKA, where do you work?)
I am now in the final stages of my postdoc in the Radiology Department of Michigan State University and am currently applying for Assistant Professor positions. Together with Prof. David Zhu I supervise and mentor the graduate students in our lab as well as students that rotate through it. I also mentor and advise students remotely for their bachelor’s and master's theses at my home University of Lübeck, Germany where I did my Ph.D. in Computer Science and Computational Neuroscience. In my research, I work interdisciplinary with many different universities, e. g. Vanderbilt University, University of Texas, John Hopkins University, or the Max Planck Institute Tübingen, Germany, on a variety of research questions. With my collaborators at these institutions, there are always students working on joint projects where it is natural to mutually teach skills important for the project’s success but also in the personal interest of the students.
What is a challenge you experience in your educator role? Any particular “solutions” or “best practices” you’ve found that help you support student success at the university despite/in the face of this?
My German Diploma in Informatics taught me the importance of multidimensional learning, or as Aristotle said, “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts”. Over the last few years, I saw a trend that students are taught highly specific topics, without relating these to a “grand scheme”. Integrating information from multiple perspectives gives cross-references to other related topics and courses. This integration facilitates the ability to abstract learned information and helps to apply it in a more holistic way of connecting “the bigger picture”. For clarity, the content in my lectures is presented in a way that is illustrative rather than abstract, so that students are able to grasp the content and put it into relation to what they have learned before. I always try to highlight cross-references as much as possible, so that students see past the boundaries of final exams.
What are practices you utilize that help you feel successful as an educator?
The most important I think is to find a way to effectively communicate. As my teaching is typically in a small group or individual setting, I am able to tailor my teaching directly to the needs of my students. This helps tremendously in finding ways to communicate expectations between my students and me. 
What topics or ideas about teaching and learning would you like to see discussed on the iteach.msu.edu platform? Why do you think this conversation is needed at MSU? 
It would be amazing to have a central place on the platform, where educators could advertise potential master’s or bachelor’s theses, or rotation projects, or vice versa, students could advertise that they are on the look-out for these projects, with a few skills that they have, to see if there might be a fit. In my time here at MSU, it has been very difficult to find mid-level academic hands, especially interdisciplinary ones. The lack of or at least problematic communication between different parts of the University makes local collaboration very difficult.
What are you looking forward to (or excited to be a part of) next semester?
I am excited for a few of my students to get the chance to present at scientific conferences. It is always such a rewarding experience and always such a big push for motivation and new ideas.


Don't forget to celebrate individuals you see making a difference in teaching, learning, or student success at MSU with #iteachmsu's Thank an Educator initiative. You might just see them appear in the next feature!

The move to online learning in response to COVID-19 brought both challenges and opportunities. An off-campus, flipped section of ANTR 350 has been offered in Grand Rapids during the summer since 2017. When Michigan State University moved to online learning for summer 2020, the class was adapted to a Zoom-based, synchronous model. Students were required to complete online learning modules as preparation for each class. During class, students worked in small groups to complete application activities in Zoom breakout rooms.
Groups were assigned and reconfigured for each unit. The instructor provided recommendations for working effectively in a group and students received feedback after the first and third units regarding their teamwork skills and class performance. Unit exams were two-stage examinations, consisting of an individual exam followed immediately by a group exam. These examinations were timed and proctored over Zoom by faculty and staff.
Students and faculty faced many technological, health, and personal challenges during the semester. However, students demonstrated tremendous resilience and flexibility. Overall, the course was a very positive experience; student performance and SIRS ratings were higher than during previous iterations of the course. The instructor observed improved group work skills, which was mirrored by student feedback. Overall, we were able to retain the flipped approach and emphasis on group work by using Zoom breakout rooms to simulate a collaborative learning environment comparable to that of the in-person experience.

To access a PDF of the "Creating a Collaborative Learning Environment in a Synchronous, Flipped Course" poster, click here.
Description of the Poster
Creating a Collaborative Learning Environment in a Synchronous, Flipped Course 
Ryan Maureen Tubbs, Department of Radiology, Division of Human Anatomy, College of Human Medicine
Alexis Amos, Michigan State University, Psychology Major, Senior 
ANTR 350 Goes Virtual 
ANTR 350, Human Gross Anatomy for Pre-Health Professionalsis an undergraduate course traditionally offered as large, in-person lecture sections on main campus and as a flipped, in-person section in Grand Rapids during summer semesters. 
When Michigan State University moved to online learning for summer 2020, the class was adapted to a Zoom-based, synchronous model. Students were required to complete online learning modules as preparation for each class. During class, students worked in small groups to complete application activities in Zoom breakout rooms. The move to online learning in response to COVID-19 brought both challenges and opportunities in terms of creating a collaborative learning environment.  
An online preparatory assignment was due at start of each class 


Readings interspersed with videos, interactive models, and questions 


Guided by specific learning objectives 


Variable number of questions but each assignment worth 2pts (total 11.2% of grade) 


Image: screenshot of a portion of a Top Hat Assignment titled "Preparatory Reading June 9". Some of the learning objectives and headings are shown. 
During class, students primarily collaborated in Zoom breakout rooms to review and apply the content covered in the preparatory assignment. The instructor moved between rooms to check on group progress and answer questions. Most in-class activities utilized Google docs or Top Hat, so the instructor could also observe group progress in real time. For most activities, keys were available during class so that groups did not end up stuck on any questions.  
10:00-10:03 Application prompt while people logged in, answers entered in zoom chat 
10:04-10:15 Synchronous, Top Hat-based Readiness Quiz, 5 questions 
10:15-11:45 Groupwork and mini-lectures* 
11:45-11:50 Post-class survey soliciting feedback on activities & overall session
Image: screenshot of example application exercise using Google Docs. A CT is shown on the right side of the image and a series of questions is shown on the left. Students answers to the questions are shown in blue. 
Creating a Collaborative Learning Environment 
The importance of developing teamwork skills was emphasized in the syllabus and during the course overview presentation. Students were given descriptions of five different group roles (leader, learner, time-keeper, recorder, and summarizer) and asked to try moving between the roles. Students were asked to read and agree to expectations for student interactions, including keeping camera on when possible, actively engaging with the group, agreeing not to take screenshots or record the session, and guidelines about private chats. The instructor acknowledged the awkwardness of working with strangers over zoom and asked all students to be generous of spirit with each other.  
A brief ice-breaker activity was assigned at the start of each unit to give students an opportunity to develop their collaborative learning relationships. After each unit, students were asked to give honest feedback to the instructor about each of their groupmates’ collaborative learning skills. Students received feedback summaries and recommendations about how to improve their collaborative skills at the end of units 1 and 3. Groups were also asked to set ground rules and group goals at the start of units 2 and 3. 
Image: screenshot of June 9 Top Hat In-Class Page. Activity 1 is an ice breaker for new groups. Activity 2 is an axial muscles google doc groupwork exercise. Activity 3 is the review of that google doc as a whole class and Activity 4 is setting Unit 2 goals. 
The importance of collaborative learning was emphasized by the inclusion of collaborative testing. Unit exams consisted of an individual exam followed immediately by the same exam taken in their groups. The group exam contributed 16.67% to each unit exam score.  
Student feedback was collected in SIRS, post-class, and post-course surveys 
Student Feedback 
Image: bar chart showing responses to "How many of your classmates that you did not know previously did you communicate with outside of class during the semester?" 


Fall 2019 (in-person section): Average of 1.3125 


Spring 2020 (Fall 2019 (in-person section until COVID moved asynchronous): Average of 1.2181 


Summer 2020 (sychronous zoom) 1.5625 


Fall 2020 (asynchronous online) 0.8082 


Image: bar chart showing response to "Overall, did you have someone you could reach out to if you struggled with content during this course?" 
Fall 2019 (in-person):  
Yes for all units 79.2% 
Yes, for 3 or 4 units 0% 
Yes, for 1 or two units 12.5% 
No, I never really did 8.3% 
Spring 2020 (mostly in-person) 
Yes for all units 67.3% 
Yes, for 3 or 4 units 5.4% 
Yes, for 1 or two units 16.3% 
No, I never really did 10.9% 
Summer 2020 (synchronous, virtual) 
Yes for all units 81.3% 
Yes, for 3 or 4 units 0% 
Yes, for 1 or two units 6.2% 
No, I never really did 12.5% 
Fall 2020 (asychronous, virtual) 
Yes for all units 60.8% 
Yes, for 3 or 4 units 5.4% 
Yes, for 1 or two units 14.9% 
No, I never really did 18.9% 
Spring 2021 (asychronous, current course) 
Yes for all units 54.7% 
Yes, for 3 or 4 units 4.7% 
Yes, for 1 or two units 16.1% 
No, I never really did 24.5% 
Image: 100% Stacked Column Chart showing student responses to "How comfortable did you feel reaching out to a  course instructor if you struggled with content?" 
Fall 2019 
Extremely Comfortable 54% 
Somewhat comfortable 29% 
Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable 8% 
Somewhat uncomfortable 4% 
Extremely uncomfortable 4% 
Spring 2020 
Extremely Comfortable 36% 
Somewhat comfortable 29% 
Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable 20% 
Somewhat uncomfortable 15% 
Extremely uncomfortable 0% 
Summer 2020  
Extremely Comfortable 87% 
Somewhat comfortable 0% 
Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable 13% 
Somewhat uncomfortable 0% 
Extremely uncomfortable 0% 
Fall 2020  
Extremely Comfortable 39% 
Somewhat comfortable 32% 
Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable 18% 
Somewhat uncomfortable 8% 
Extremely uncomfortable 3% 
Spring 2021  
Extremely Comfortable 35% 
Somewhat comfortable 30% 
Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable 30% 
Somewhat uncomfortable 4% 
Extremely uncomfortable 2% 
Image: Pie Chart Titled "Overall, how supported did you feel during this course compared to other courses you have taken?” (Summer 2020) 
Far above average is shown as 81%, Somewhat above average is shown as 13%, Average is shown as 6%. Somewhat below average and far below average are listed in the legend but not represented in the chart as they are 0% 
Conclusions 
Summer 2020 was a hard semester for everyone. We all faced many technological, health, and personal challenges during the semester. Despite these challenges, students demonstrated tremendous resilience and we were able to create a collaborative learning environment using Zoom breakout rooms. Overall, the course was a very positive experience; student performance and SIRS ratings were higher than during previous Summer iterations of the course. In addition, students felt more connected compared to the asynchronous Fall sections. 
Image: Table “Student Performance” 
Number of students enrolled in course:  
Summer 2019: 22 
Spring 2020: 338 
Summer 2020: 52 
Number of students withdrawn from course: 
Summer 2019: 0 
Spring 2020: 1 
Summer 2020: 0 
Mean percent score overall: 
Summer 2019: 82.85% 
Spring 2020: 90.19% 
Summer 2020: 89.03% 
Number of students with passing scores (2.0 or higher): 
Summer 2019: 20 
Spring 2020: 332 
Summer 2020: 50 
Number of students with failing scores (1.5 of lower): 
Summer 2019: 2 
Spring 2020: 4 
Summer 2020: 2 
Percentage of students with failing scores: 
Summer 2019: 9% 
Spring 2020: 1% 
Summer 2020: 3.8% 
Image: Results of MSU Student Instructional Rating System (SIRS)  
Summer 2019 SIRS 
Course Organization 
Superior 33.3% 
Above Average 55.5% 
Average 11.1% 
Below Average 0% 
Inferior 0% 
Adequacy of the outlined direction of the course 
Superior 33.3% 
Above Average 55.5% 
Average 11.1% 
Below Average 0% 
Inferior 0% 
Your general enjoyment of the course 
Superior 33.3% 
Above Average 44.4% 
Average 22.2% 
Below Average 0% 
Inferior 0% 
Summer 2020 SIRS 
Course Organization 
Superior 70.9% 
Above Average 19.3% 
Average 6.45% 
Below Average 3.22% 
Inferior 0% 
Adequacy of the outlined direction of the course 
Superior 77.4% 
Above Average 16.1% 
Average 6.45% 
Below Average 0% 
Inferior 0% 
Your general enjoyment of the course 
Superior 54.8% 
Above Average 38.7% 
Average 6.45% 
Below Average 0% 
Inferior 0% 
References 
Gaillard, Frank. “Acute Maxillary Sinusitis: Radiology Case.” Radiopaedia Blog RSS, radiopaedia.org/cases/acute-maxillary-sinusitis?lang=us.  
ANTR 350 Top Hat Course. www.tophat.com  
Acknowledgments  
A giant thank you to the ANTR 350 Summer Class of 2020!  
 
 

Work with us to create a unique teaching and learning experience at CMERC.
You are invited to incorporate nature into courses and create learner‐centered experiences at CMERC (pronounced ‘see‐merk’), the Corey Marsh Ecological Research Center. CMERC is a 350‐acre ecological research center located 20 minutes from MSU campus in Bath Township, Michigan. It is a place for making scientific discoveries and integrating the arts and sciences in a collaborative, interdisciplinary, and inclusive space. CMERC welcomes educators, researchers, and citizens across MSU to explore, co‐create, facilitate and grow experiential courses for students.
CMERC seeks faculty and academic staff collaborators to develop learning experiences that will bring together educators, students, and community members to explore and learn from this vibrant ecological field site. MSU faculty and staff from across campus interested in this funded opportunity to join a SoTL Fellowship in land-based learning can connect with Jeno Rivera, Center Educational Program Development Leader at jeno@msu.edu.What is Corey Marsh (CMERC)?
CMERC is more than a physical place. It is a space that offers meaningful place-based experiences.CMERC was once MSU’s Muck Soils Research Center and operated from 1941 – 2012. In 2018, Fisheries and Wildlife associate professor Jen Owen, with the support of MSU AgBioResearch, led the reimagined CMERC into a place for integrating ecosystem science research with student learning and community engagement. In addition to training MSU undergraduate students in field‐based research and science  communication, the center aims to promote better land stewardship practices and the relevance of science to society. While still early in its development as an AgBioResearch site, CMERC has been engaging in a people-centered approach to the planning, design and management of the space. CMERC foresees a collaborative process transforming the space to a place that engages a diverse community – internal and external to the university in scientific discovery.Location of Corey Marsh Ecological Research Center in Bath TownshipHow can I contribute?
Given the unique opportunity CMERC provides to enhance student learning, we want to make sure that it serves a diverse student community that spans disciplines and units. We want educators in our SoTL Fellowship in land-based learning to reflect that diversity and help develop curriculum that will foster collaboration among students and serve to integrate arts and humanities with sciences.  Consider these examples of possible learning experiences at CMERC:

Edible and Medicinal Plants – for humans and wildlife. What is good for humans vs. wildlife?  What grows in muck soils? How can ecological restoration efforts incorporate edible plants? What is missing that was likely at CMERC in the past? 
Trails – People – Nature – Wildlife: How does trail design enhance natural experiences and maintain integrity of the ecosystem? What informs the development of a trail?
Land Grant or Land Grab?: Who was here before us? How did this land become a part of the land-grant system? How can this land honor those who used it in the past, present, and the future? 
Agriculture and Natural Resources – how can we document and understand how historic land-use affects ecosystem integrity now and in the future?

CMERC actively seeks MSU faculty and staff interested in designing and facilitating an interdisciplinary, learner-centered, sense-making experience built on the resources of CMERC. This curricular/co-curricular programming will be titled Lessons from Nature: Stories from CMERC. We envision that the learning inquiries would be co-created by faculty and students together. More specifically, the lessons will be shaped as a studio experience that is akin to Liberty Hyde Bailey Scholars (BSP) integrated learning/self-directed courses or modular programming. These experiences would be facilitated by a faculty member, but inquiry and assessment are student led. Alternatively, you can develop learning experiences to enhance an existing course or curriculum. You may also be interested in giving your students the opportunity to facilitate place-based informal learning for youth in the local community.Next Steps: Have Fun. Explore Nature. Get to Know Us!
We invite your ideas and input for designing meaningful experiences at CMERC. Collaborators who are selected for our Fall 2022 cohort will receive $2,000 to support their participation. To explore how you can partner with CMERC, contact Jeno Rivera, Center Educational Program Development Leader at jeno@msu.edu  
Deadline to apply: June 15th, 2022.
 

Michigan State University was an early leader adopter of an integrative studies approach to undergraduate general education. Unfortunately, this program has experienced structural changes that resulted in a significant increase in class sizes for ISS classes in particular. As a result, instruction in these classes has become largely didactic, and in many classes, student assessment is primarily measured through high-stakes, multiple-choice exams. For so many MSU students, this passive pedagogical approach leaves them disengaged and disinterested. The question remains: How can ISS faculty facilitate engaged and project-based interdisciplinary curriculum with the current scale of their large-format classes? It is in this context and around these challenges that this project takes shape, and with the support of a Hub Faculty Fellowship in 2020-2021, we set out to bring innovation to ISS. Over the course of three semesters and amidst mandated remote online learning, our instructional team designed and implemented a meaningful, engaged, interdisciplinary, and team-based research project into an ISS general education course (with enrollments of 300 students) on the broad topic of Material Culture Studies. For the course project, students were required to explore a complex integrative research topic of their choice related to Material Culture Studies. Their research developed within weekly benchmark steps and culminated in the production of a short documentary film over their chosen topic. All student films were then showcased in an end-of-semester virtual student film festival. The course project design and the student outcomes and experiences with this project are the focus of our presentation. Our research proposal team includes the ISS professor of the class, two teaching assistants (both who completed the film project as students in SS20), and three participant students (all who created films in FS20). Together with our various positionalities, we propose to present the findings of this innovative ISS pedagogical research in the form of an academic poster—a common format to present preliminary findings of a research project that is still in progress. Additionally, we will embed into our poster a link to our team-produced short film that documents this guiding course project in engaged digital storytelling within an ISS general education course. We hope this film will demonstrate that we are pedagogically practicing what we preach to our students.To access a PDF of the "ISS Innovation: Documentary Storytelling as Engaged Learning in General Education" poster, click here. Please note: This poster contains embedded videos that are accessible via the PDF or below. 
The title of this poster is:  ISS Innovation:  Documentary Storytelling as Engaged Learning in General Education. 
This poster contains several sections. The first section outlines the research problem and purpose and provides a brief literature review on the topic. This section ends with the articulation of the guiding research question. 
The second section is a table that describes the research methods and data collection choices for the project. This is followed by the third section that provides a detailed iconic logic model of the data analysis scheme for the research project. 
The fourth section presents selected findings from the project. There are three major findings presented, and accompanying each of the findings is a short YouTube video/film that was produced by the research team to give the viewers a comprehensive picture of the guiding course ISS project that this pedagogical research investigates.  
ISS Innovation: Active and Engaged Learning
Culturally Responsive CurriculumMotivating Creative Risk Taking
There are links to the associated film festival that showcases the documentary films that MSU students in the ISS class produced as their guiding course projects. The poster has a brief conclusion section and a references section. 

Given the COVID-19 pandemic, educators from many fields have looked to representations of pandemics to help students study topics the pandemic has accentuated. In the history of science, educators have explored inequalities in medicine, trust in experts, and responses to uncertainty. To help make these issues digestible, some educators have turned to the cooperative board game, Pandemic Legacy. Small groups work together to avert a global health crisis by managing disease. Teams play the game multiple times, but actions in one game have consequences for the next and rules change and develop as the game progresses. The game's development introduces students to new concepts at a manageable pace while giving them new problems to solve. While the game effectively introduced students to topics in the history of science, this study sought to know whether it promoted cognitive and interpersonal skills. It focused on team adaptive performance, which is linked to problem-solving and communication skills. Data was collected using three surveys. Variation in teams' responses was analyzed using the Median test. The Friedman test was used to analyze each team's adaptive performance at each of the three timesteps. All teams were initially quite confident in their ability to creatively deal with unexpected events and reported that they adapted well to new tasks. As they encountered novel situations, some teams reported that their confidence decreased. They were newly aware that they did not have creative solutions to unexpected problems. Teams aware of their limitations performed better than those who maintained their initial confidence.To access a PDF of the "Studying Team Adaptive Performance using the Board Game Pandemic Legacy" poster, click here.Description of the Poster
Studying Team Adaptive Performance using the Board Game Pandemic Legacy 
Research Goal 
This study examined how team adaptive performance evolves over time. Adaptative performance is understood as a process that more effectively moves a team towards its objectives. The team must recognize deviations from expected action and readjust actions to obtain the best outcome (Salas, Sims, Burke 2005; Priest et al. 2002; Marques-Quinteiro et al. 2015). 
While previous studies have examined team adaptive performance in singular events, this study aimed to measure the evolution of team adaptive performance over time. Using a cooperative boardgame that changes as teams play, the study measured how well teams performed in response to three major deviations in game play that necessitated adaptation. 
Research Hypothesis 
Teams with higher perceived levels of adaptability will have better outcomes (the success measure) over time than teams with lower levels of adaptability  
Research Methods 
A total of 16 participants were divided into four teams. Each team played the cooperative board game, Pandemic Legacy (Figure 1), nine times throughout the study. Each participant completed a team adaptive performance questionnaire three times during the study, once after each major disruption in the board game. The questionnaire was designed to assess perceptions of team performance, based on Marques Quinteiro et al. 2015. It consisted of control questions about participants’ demographics as well as a 10-item Likert scale team performance questions broken down into categories assessing satisfaction, creativity, adjustability, adaptability, and positivity.  
Questions to evaluate adaptability included: 
Q7:We update technical and interpersonal competences as a way to better perform the tasks in which we are enrolled. 
Q8: We search and develop new competences to deal with difficult situations. 
Reliability Analysis showed that Cronbach alpha for Q7 and Q8 is 0.938. 
Team outcomes were assessed by a success measure that evaluated each team’s number of wins (where > wins = better outcome) and number of outbreaks (where < outbreaks = better outcome) 
Research Results: Success Measure 
The success measure results of number of wins are displayed in a bar chart. 
The success measure results of number of outbreaks are displayed in a bar chart. 
Research Results: Adaptability Measure 
Differences in the median score of teams’ responses to each question was calculated using the Median Test. Team 3 responded differently than at least one of the other teams to Q8 after Survey 1. Post-hoc analysis with pairwise comparison tests was conducted with a Bonferroni correction applied, revealing a statistically significant difference between Team 3 and Team 1 (p =.030), and Team 3 and Team 2 (p =.030). 
Using the above method revealed no significant results after Survey 2. After Survey 3, there was a significant difference between Team 4 and Team 2 (p=.049) for Q7 and Team 1 and Team 2 (p=.049) for Q8. 
A Friedman Test was performed to determine if responses to the questions changed over time. There was a statistically significant difference in Team 3’s response to Q8 (X2(2)= 6.500, p= .039). Post-hoc analysis with pairwise comparison tests was conducted with a Bonferroni correction applied, resulting in a significance difference between Team 3’s first and third survey for Q8. 
Research Findings 
The initial analysis suggests that teams, such as Team 3, that develop higher perceptions of their adaptability will have better outcomes once the higher perceptions are achieved. Teams, such as Team 1, that begin with high perceived levels of adaptability but did not alter their approach when the success measures indicate adaptation is needed will have poorer outcomes. Teams, such as Team 2, that report high perceptions of adaptability throughout and that correspond with the success measure, will maintain good outcomes. 
Analysis of the satisfaction, creativity, adjustability, and positivity data is needed to determine if these affect the success measure or adaptability over time. 
Acknowledgments 
Funding provided by the MSU SUTL Fellows program, a collaboration between the Lyman Briggs College and the MSU Graduate School. 
References 
Marques-Quinteiro, P. et al. 2015. “Measuring adaptive performance in individuals and teams.” Team Performance Management 21, 7/8: 339-60. 
Priest, H.A. et al. 2002. “Understanding team adaptability: Initial theoretical and practical considerations.” Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 46: 561-65. 
Salas, E. D.E. Sims, C.S. Burke. 2005. “Is there a ‘Big Five’ in Teamwork?” Small Group Research 36, 5: 555-99.