From Individual Growth to Group Benefit: Developing Teamwork Competencies in Project-Based Collaborative Engineering Education

Research Paper Recommended citation: Cloots, J., Van Den Broeck, L., Dujardin, R., & Deprez, H. (2025). From Individual Growth to Group Benefit: Developing Teamwork Competencies in Project-Based Collaborative Engineering Education. In Kangaslampi, R., Langie, G., Järvinen, H.-M., & Nagy, B. (Eds.), SEFI 53rd Annual Conference. European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), Tampere, Finland. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17631895. This Conference Paper is brought to you for open access by the 53rd Annual Conference of the European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) at Tampere University in Tampere, Finland. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. 1 Corresponding Author J. Cloots [email protected] FROM INDIVIDUAL GROWTH TO GROUP BENEFIT: DEVELOPING TEAMWORK COMPETENCIES IN PROJECT-BASED COLLABORATIVE ENGINEERING EDUCATION J. Cloots a,1, L. Van Den Broeck a, R. Dujardin a, H. Deprez b a KU Leuven, LESEC, Faculty of Engineering Technology, ETHER, Leuven, Belgium 0009-0009-8805-6765 0000-0002-6276-7501 0000-0003-4584-8446 b KU Leuven, LESEC, Faculty of Engineering science, Leuven, Belgium 0000-0001-9784-2826 Conference Key Areas: engineering skills, professional skills, and transversal skills; improving higher engineering education through researching engineering education Keywords: teamwork competencies, collaborative learning, project-based learning ABSTRACT The demands of the contemporary workplace increasingly require engineering students to have developed teamwork-related competencies by the time of their graduation. This study therefore examines the effectiveness of a collaborative projectbased learning approach in developing teamwork competencies in an engineering technology bachelor program. A mixed-methods approach was used, including selfassessment rubrics and reflections from personal development process (PDP) eportfolios. The results show no significant differences in self-assessment scores between first-year and third-year students. However, qualitative analysis of the PDP eportfolios reveals that third-year students demonstrate a more critical and well-rounded understanding of teamwork and collaboration competencies. The findings suggest that the combination of professional competencies seminars and group projects with authentic problems can effectively develop teamwork skills. This research has implications for the design of project-based collaborative learning approaches in engineering education and the assessment of teamwork competencies. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background It is widely recognized that engineering students today require a vastly different skillset at graduation compared to their predecessors (Kimpton & Maynard, 2023), including skills such as leadership, communication, and effective collaboration (Munoz-la Rivera et al, 2020). These teamwork-related skills are transversal competencies that are increasingly in demand across all industries (European commission, 2022; World Economic Forum, 2025). Under the umbrella term of collaborative learning, various instructional methods have been explored and implemented to effectively teach teamwork skills in an engaging and practical manner. Teaching these skills is however not so straightforward as simply grouping students and making them learn or work together (Cohen & Lotan, 2014; Rezaei, 2018). Team-based activities need to be proactive and supportive in developing an understanding of team dynamics, whilst remaining authentic and contextually relevant (Sokhanvar et al., 2021; Chang et al., 2024; Francis et al., 2024; Xie et al., 2025). Therefore, one particular approach that stands out is project-based learning (PBL), as it is argumented to both deepen and apply theoretical knowledge during authentic experiences as well as explicate the teamwork process (Jaiswal et al., 2021). Yet while the theoretical promises of collaborative PBL have led to many engineering faculties adopting this approach, the question remains if their implementation effectively accomplishes these goals. Because of the multifaceted nature of PBL, educators as well as students risk focusing too much on the technical aspects of the project, thereby overlooking the crucial team dynamics that PBL aims to uncover and enhance (Shin, 2018). A healthy balance is needed to enhance the development of both technical and transversal competencies. The current study therefore aims to investigate the effectiveness of a project-based collaborative course in developing collaborative skills by answering the following research question: To what extend do students in the third phase of a project-based collaborative course exhibit better teamwork-related competencies compared to students at the start of the first phase? 1.2 Project-Based Collaborative Learning: the “Engineering Experiences” Course At the faculty of engineering technology at the KU Leuven university in Belgium, students in each phase of the three-year bachelor program partake in the year-long course “Engineering Experiences”. The main components of the course comprise a project with authentic problems and professional competencies seminars. In the project, students are challenged to solve an engineering problem in teams. This openended group assignment aims to integrate the technical knowledge students obtained in other courses as well as provoke students to work on their professional competencies in a quasi-authentic environment. In the seminars, students are explicitly introduced to crucial transversal competencies and guided in their process to develop them. In each phase, team dynamics and teamwork receive considerable attention. Additionally, Engineering Experiences can also include laboratory assignments, company assignments, experiment design assignments, and construction site monitoring components to fully immerse students in their future working environment and conditions as engineers. The combination of a real-life project and professional competencies seminars aims to make transversal skills explicit and offer both guidance and concrete experience opportunities to the students in order to actively construct and develop their professional skillset. 2. METHODOLOGY 2.1 Method and Participants This study employed a mixed-methods approach to answer the research question and reveal if an integrated project-based collaborative learning approach effectively grows students’ teamwork skills. The participants consisted of students across all three phases of an engineering technology bachelor programme in Flanders, Belgium. Quantitative data was collected via self-assessment using rubrics on professional competencies in the academic years 2023-2024 and 2024-2025. Additionally, during the same years, qualitative data was collected from a personal development process (PDP) e-portfolio, in which students individually choose and track their development of one selected professional competency. All students provided informed consent for the use of their data, and the study received ethical approval from the university's ethics committee SMEC (G-2022-5292-R2(MAR). 2.2 Measurement and Materials 2.2.1 Professional Competencies Rubrics Self-assessment rubrics remain among the most prominent methods to map competencies in engineering education (Cruz et al., 2020). The professional competencies rubrics distinguish eight main competencies based on existing faculty material: lifelong learning, reflection, written communication, presentation skills, working with others, stress resistance, innovative thinking, and management. Students score themselves on a four-point scale: beginner (1), in development (2), developed (3), or expert (4). The competency of working with others is furthermore subdivided into leadership, contribution, and responsibility. The professional competencies rubrics are administered each semester. An overview of the sub-competencies included in the rubrics as well as the information provided for each skill-level of the teamwork-related competencies can be consulted at: https://osf.io/exmhr/?view_only=e0c97b7666944384b61d65a6077625d7. 2.2.2 PDP E-Portfolio In previous research, a PDP e-portfolio was developed with the purpose of allowing students to construct and monitor their own learning trajectories and work on competencies that are relevant to them (Dujardin et al., 2024). This developmental eportfolio integrates the five-step personal development process by Patel et al. (2013) by facilitating students to identify gaps, set SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound) goals, act on their plan, monitor their progress, and reflect on how their learning process has improved. The professional competencies rubrics are integrated into the ‘identify’ step of the e-portfolio. The PDP e-portfolio was integrated into the bachelor programme in the academic year 2022-2023 and has been utilised by students to support their self-regulation and prepare for lifelong learning throughout each semester. Because the e-portfolio encourages students to choose one competency to actively work on for at least one semester, these e-portfolios contain rich data in relation to students’ understanding of and orientation towards teamworkrelated competencies. 2.3 Data Analysis To answer the research question, the self-assessment scores on working with others and its subscales were compared between students at the start of their bachelor program (first-year students) and students finishing the bachelor program. More specifically, from the available data of academic years 2023-2024 and 2024-2025, the self-assessment scores of students in the first semester of the first phase (n=81) were compared with the latest available scores in the first semester of the third phase (n=51). Since this data is ordinal in nature, differences between these two cohorts were tested using a Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test and effect sizes were calculated using Cliff’s Delta. The qualitative data gathered from the PDP e-portfolios underwent several selection stages. First, all available portfolios (n=408) of the academic years 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 were screened on the competency chosen to develop. In a first stage, all portfolios explicitly mentioning ‘working with others’ or ‘teamwork’ or ‘collaboration’ were retained (n=20). Secondly, e-portfolios with an implicit orientation towards teamwork (e.g. ‘extraversion’ and ‘friendliness’) were also retained for further analysis (n=14). The combined entries (n=34) were subjected to thematic analysis, in which codes were developed inductively. 3. RESULTS 3.1 Cross-Sectional Analysis of Differences in Self-Assessment Table 1 shows the descriptive and inferential statistics of the rubrics scores on working with others (WWO) and its subscales. The Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test revealed no significant differences between self-assessment scores of first year and third year students. Table 1. Descriptive and inferential statistics of the rubrics scores Competency Mean (SD) Phase 1 Mean (SD) Phase 3 Wilcoxon p-value Cliff’s Delta Cliff’s Delta 95% CI (lower) Cliff’s Delta 95% CI (Upper) Leadership 2.76 (0.73) 2.80 (0.60) .9828 -0.0022 -0.1769 0.1726 Contribution 3.05 (0.55) 3.06 (0.50) .9405 -0.0063 -0.1644 0.1520 Responsibility 3.3 (0.62) 3.33 (0.62) .7286 -0.0321 -0.2081 0.1459 Total WWO 9.11 (1.28) 9.20 (1.27) .9748 0.0034 -0.1938 0.2004 Note. Scores on leadership, contribution, and responsibility range from 1 to 4. Total WWO is the sum of these scores. Figure 1 shows that whereas there are no significant differences, the overall score on working with others differs slightly between groups. While the highest concentration of students’ total scores occurs at scores 9 and 10 for first phase students, for third Fig. 1. Distribution of the total WWO score per phase. phase students this is slightly lower at scores 8 and 9. However, more students of the third year assess themselves as having reached the ‘expert’ level in all three subscales, resulting in a total score of 12. 3.2 Qualitative Analysis of PDP E-Portfolios Thematic analysis of 34 PDP e-portfolios unveiled three main themes, across which phase 1 and phase 3 students differed. The inductive codes could be categorised in terms of argumentation for the selected competency, students’ concept of leadership, and students’ definition of successful skill development. Students in phase 1 reported self-oriented motivation, a more shallow and domination centred perception of leadership, and directly link efficient product development with skill development. In contrast, phase 3 students are more group-oriented, showcase a more profound reflection on the leadership concept, and are more critical in their assessment of successful skill development. Before expanding on these themes, some statistics of the PDP e-portfolios are highlighted. 3.2.1 Competency Selection in PDP E-Portfolios Students can choose among 37 different competencies to focus on each semester, of which four are related to working with others (the overarching competency and its three components leadership, contribution, and responsibility). While these are not amongst the most popular choices in any of the phases, a steady increase is observed as 8% (n=16) of students in phase one choose to work on their collaborative skills, compared to 14% (n=18) in phase 3 of the bachelor program. In addition, phase 3 students more often explicitly link their focus on collaborative skill development to the dedicated working with others competency. In phase one, 50% (n=8) of choices to develop teamwork skills were not related to a working with others competency, but rather with extraversion, openness, and kindness. In contrast, 66% (n=12) of phase 3 students who selected a competency aimed at improving their ability to work with others explicitly connected their choice to one of the teamwork-related competencies. 3.2.2 Self-Oriented Versus Group-Oriented Motivation A first clear difference appeared in the arguments students gave to motivate their choice of competency to develop for the semester. The arguments can be categorized into two distinct sections: those that pertain to personal growth (n=21) and those that refer to the enhancement of team dynamics and the overall group process (n=18). While some students can be categorised in both groups, Phase 1 students are clearly more self-oriented, explaining their choice in terms of what they can personally gain from this effort. The most mentioned motives in phase 1 were developing courage, selfconfidence and assertiveness. One student writes: I still sometimes lose my voice in the group. This semester, I want to build the self-confidence to take the lead [...] I assume that after a few weeks, I will feel comfortable enough to stand in front of the group [...] I hope to gain the confidence to lead a group and be respected in this role. Phase 3 students on the other hand more often than not motivate their choice in terms of how this endeavour could benefit their team. The most mentioned arguments were learning how to get along, improve communication, and learning to trust others. Last semester, I had to collaborate a lot with people I didn't know well. This collaboration didn't always go smoothly because communication was more difficult compared to group work where I knew everyone well. Dividing the tasks also didn't always go easily. To ensure that teamwork goes better this semester, I am going to focus on clear communication and the division of tasks within a team. 3.2.3 Understanding of Leadership Across phases, students seem to interpret what it means to be a leader differently, which is apparent in two progress indicator reflection moments. students in the first phase perceive a leader as a distinct individual who exerts dominance and directs others, and view leadership as a personal achievement and a desirable goal: During the group projects and labs, I took the lead as much as possible. I sent various messages and emails to my colleagues to ensure the work was completed on time or because they hadn't done their part of the work yet. Students in later years however report a more profound reflection on what a leader is supposed to do: It is important to first understand the qualities a 'good' leader should possess. My focus was mainly on: effective and smooth communication, monitoring the progress of the bachelor's thesis and the students specifically working on it, scheduling regular contact moments with the responsible person, establishing a targeted distribution of tasks to improve efficiency, and so on. When reflecting on their progress and reporting that they did not always assume the leader role, another student explains: I did take into account the things a good leader should do, and when it came down to it, I was able to do them (e.g. establish and follow up deadlines). I hope to continue doing this in the future because I really notice that it adds a lot of value to the group projects. 3.2.4 Defining Successful Skill Development At each reflection moment, students indicate whether they have improved their chosen competency since the last time, and eventually reflect on their whole development process. Analysis revealed that while almost all students of phase 1 indicate acceptable growth, students in later phases are more critical. While most phase 1 students mention efficiency or effectiveness of their project work as indicators of successful skill development, arriving at an acceptable product in an effective and efficient manner is no longer satisfactory for phase 3 students to determine individual growth in a teamwork-related competency. I don’t think I have really grown in this competency. I did try to take the lead in all my group projects. Sometimes it went well, sometimes less so. I did try to do things like creating a task distribution and improving communication with the team. […] I was told that this was appreciated. In terms of planning and administration, the project went well, [but] I don't really know whether I have grown in the competency. 4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS This study investigated the effectiveness of a project-based collaborative learning approach in the development of engineering technology students’ teamwork competencies. The cross-sectional analysis revealed that students’ self-assessments of their competencies did not significantly differ before and after following the Engineering Experiences course. However, compared to first year students, students in the last phase of the bachelor program showcase both a more critical and wellrounded understanding of teamwork and orientation and collaboration competencies. From these results, several discussion points arise that warrant further consideration. First, while no significant differences were found between self-assessment scores of phase 1 and phase 3 students, the distribution of total scores differed slightly. Similar to yet unpublished research/, the self-assessment scores of first year students tends to be more spread out and resemble a normal distribution. In contrast, the highest concentration of third year students is on a lower score This might indicate that first year students are less able to accurately assess their skills. Meanwhile, the higher concentration of lower scores in the third year matches the more critical view third year students seem to have on their successful development of teamwork skills found in the e-portfolios. Second, the observed shift from an individual orientation towards a social orientation could be linked to the design of the Engineering Experiences course. When students are first introduced to the professional competencies in the first semester of the first phase, they learn about the importance of developing certain skillsets for future employability. Yet as the students progress and partake in subsequent project work in later phases, students gain real-life experiences and are confronted with the purpose behind developing these interpersonal, transversal skills. This can in turn explain the difference of consideration given to the concept of leadership between phases 1 and 3. While first-year students accept the necessity of developing leadership skills for their personal development, third-year students actively build their own understanding of what makes a good leader, often recalling past experiences and comparisons between different teams. This shift could suggest that the combination of professional competencies seminars and a real-life group project with authentic problems can succeed in ensuring the development of teamwork-related competencies. However, as the current study cannot rule out natural growth, future experimental research should be conducted to replicate these findings. The combined qualitative insights are indicative of a shift in knowledge on and attitudes towards teamwork and the importance of team dynamics in engineering students, thus fulfilling the expectations that project-based collaborative learning can motivate and engage students in enhancing their abilities to work with others. What cannot be distilled from these results, is whether their skills actually improved. Whereas the difference in determining successful development can explain the null difference in the quantitative data, more objective measurements are lacking to be able to make conclusions about skill growth. In addition, students’ reflections often lacked depth and somewhat limited the analysis to high-level tendencies. It is unclear whether students do not see the value of in-depth reflection, students are not able to reflect past a superficial level, or contextual reasons like time-constraints or workload are the cause. Some considerations are therefore warranted in terms of the data collection methods used in this study. While self-assessment rubrics are widely used to study competencies in engineering education (Cruz et al., 2020), literature on measuring team dynamics recommends a more comprehensive approach. Salas et al. (2017) claim teamwork and team performance should be assessed by measuring the attitudes, behaviours and cognitions at both the individual and team levels. Whereas the combination of self-assessment rubrics and PDP e-portfolios mostly succeed in measuring attitudes, no measurements of behaviours were included in this study. The observed shift in understanding of leadership also indicates that these measurements can gain valuable insights into the cognition of students. This was however only observed within the leadership rubric, presumably due to the somewhat ambiguous explanation provided for each skill level. While the rubrics for contribution and responsibility clearly define each level, the leadership rubric lacks a clear explanation, leaving students to form their own understanding as they develop leadership skills. Practitioners should reconsider the PDP e-portfolio descriptions to better support students in constructing their own understanding of key team dynamics. This includes revisiting whether leadership, contribution, and responsibility are the most relevant teamwork competencies for engineering technology students throughout the program. The shortcomings of this study call for a more comprehensive approach to assess teamwork competencies in a project-based collaborative setting. While an adjusted version of the rubrics and the PDP e-portfolio could result in gaining specific insights into the attitudes and cognitions of individual students, they should be complemented with assessments of individual behaviour on the one hand, and measurements of collective attitudes, behaviours and cognition on the other hand. Researchers should additionally investigate why the PDP e-portfolios often lack deep reflections, and how both reflective support and portfolio design can be better aligned to foster rich, in-depth reflections for further data analysis.