Antecedents of students team formation in higher education

Project info

Work package
  • Theory
Sustainability threat
  • External Shocks
Challenge
  • Network co-evolution

Study info

Description of Study
Many tasks require individuals to form teams, and the composition of these teams is an important predictor of their success in achieving their tasks. Yet, few scholars have investigated the mechanisms driving the formation of self-organized teams. In a sample of 70 first-year university students, we study whether students form project teams with friends, familiar others, and similar others. We rely on the novel framework of Exponential Random Partition Models (ERPMs). Our results indicate that friends and same-gender students tend to join the same teams. Still, familiarity due to previous teamwork, academic achievement, and collaborative popularity do not drive team formation. Collaborative popularity pertains to whether other students perceive students as good collaborators. This study sheds light on the factors that drive self-organized team formation. Our approach applies to multiple contexts in which individuals self-organize in distinct teams.
Study research question
This paper zooms in on three pieces of the group formation puzzle: in what way do 1) friendship relations, 2) familiarity, and 3) individual features affect the self-assembly of teams.
Collection provenance
  • External data
  • -
Collection methods
  • Questionaire
  • Longitudinal survey
Personal data
Yes
External Source
Source description
File formats
Data types
  • Structured
Languages
Coverage start
Coverage end
Spatial coverage
Collection period start
Collection period end

Variables

Unit
Unit description
Sample size
Sampling method
Individuals
university students
70
questionnaire
Hypothesis
Theory
hypothesis 1 states that friends are more likely to team up.
friendship relations
Hypothesis 2, therefore, states that being familiar with one another in previous group-based interactions makes it more likely to join similar teams.
sharing foci and homophily
hypothesis 3 states that sharing similarities in gender, grades, and cooperative reputations breeds team connectiveness.
homophily
Corollary 1, therefore, states that group formation is largely driven by dyadic instead of group homophily.
homophily
Corollary 2 states that students tend to form diverse teams.
diversity
Variable type
Variable name
Variable description
Dependent variable
group formation
composition of the group
Independent variable
Friendships
A friendship is either absent (0) or present (1) on the dyadic level.
Independent variable
introductory camp
whether a student attended the introductory camp at the start of the academic year. A 1 means that one attended while 0 corresponds to the opposite.
Independent variable
prior team
A 1 in the matrix indicates that students were part of the same project team, whereas a 0 points to no prior team affiliation
Independent variable
grades
. In the Dutch grading system, a 1 is the lowest grade possible while a 10 is the highest grade possible
Independent variable
cooperative reputations
higher scores means that one is more reputable
Independent variable
gender
gender is a dichotomous variable with 0 representing males and 1 female
Discipline-specific operationalizations
Conflict of interest

Data packages

Publications

Documents

Filename
Description
Date

Ethics

Ethical assessment
Yes
Ethical committee
Department of Sociology