Abstracts
Résumé
La pédagogie universitaire et le monde du travail sont tous deux influencés par les technologies de l’information. Dans le domaine de la conception de bâtiments durables, ces technologies servent d’objets-frontières, c’est-à-dire d’interfaces qui facilitent les interactions et le partage des connaissances nécessaires au travail multidisciplinaire. Fondé sur les théories de l’apprentissage social et de l’action située ainsi que sur des données probantes issues de plusieurs domaines dont la gestion de projet, l’architecture, l’ingénierie civile, l’ingénierie des systèmes et la conception participative, cet article présente un réseau nomologique illustrant les relations entre des phénomènes individuels et collectifs en jeu au sein d’une équipe de projet et qui déterminent l’apprentissage groupal et la performance d’un projet. Il en résulte un corpus de connaissances utiles aux pédagogues ainsi que six hypothèses vérifiables que les chercheurs peuvent tester.
Mots-clés:
- apprentissage social,
- action située,
- objet-frontière,
- conception intégrée
Abstract
University pedagogy and the world of work are both influenced by information technologies. In the field of design for sustainable construction, these technologies are used as boundary objects, which means as interfaces driving interactions and knowledge sharing required for multidisciplinary work. Based on social learning and situated action theories, and on convincing data coming from multiple domains such as project management, architecture, civil engineering, system engineering, and participatory design, this article presents a nomological network illustrating relationships between individual and collective phenomena in play within a project team, and which determine group learning and project performance. This results into a useful body of knowledge for teachers and six verifiable hypotheses that researchers can test.
Keywords:
- social learning,
- situated action,
- boundary object,
- integrated design
Appendices
Références
- Association française de normalisation. (1990). Vocabulaire de l’analyse de la valeur et de l’analyse fonctionnelle. Paris : La Défense.
- Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J. et McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 989-1004.
- Belout, A. (1997). Effects of human resource management on project effectiveness and success: Toward a new conceptual framework. International Journal of Project Management, 16, 21-26.
- Besner, C. et Hobbs, B. (2006). The perceived value and potential contribution of project management practices to project success. Project Management Journal, 37, 37-48.
- Besner, C. et Hobbs, B. (2008). Project management practice, generic or contextual: A reality check. Project Management Journal, 39, 16-33.
- Blackler, F., Crump, N. et McDonald, S. (1999). Managing experts and competing through innovation: An activity theoretical analysis. Organization, 6, 5-31.
- Blackler, F., Crump, N. et McDonald, S. (2000). Organizing processes in complex activity networks. Organization, 7, 277-300.
- Carlile, P. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13, 442-455.
- Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15, 555-568.
- Chiocchio, F. (2007). Project team performance: A study of electronic task and coordination communication. Project Management Journal, 38, 97-109.
- Chiocchio, F. et Essiembre, H. (2007, avril). Does cohesion correlate with performance in project teams? An exploratory meta-analysis. Affiche scientifique présentée à la 22nd Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New York.
- Chiocchio, F. et Essiembre, H. (sous presse). Cohesion and performance: A Meta-analytic review of disparities between project teams, production teams, and service teams. Small Group Research.
- Chiocchio, F. et Lafrenière, A. (sous presse). A project management perspective on student’s declarative commitments to goals established within asynchronous communication. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning.
- Cohen, S. G. et Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239-290.
- Cronbach, L. J. et Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302.
- Czaja, S. J., Charness, N., Fisk, A. D., Hertzog, C., Nair, S. N., Rogers, W. A. et al. (2006). Factors predicting the use of technology: Findings from the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE). Psychology and Aging, 21, 333-352.
- Deforge, Y. (1986). Technologie et génétique de l’objet industriel. Paris: Maloine.
- Department of Health. (2008, janvier). Achieving excellence design evaluation toolkit. Récupéré le 30 mars 2009 du site du Department of Health du Royaume-Uni, section Publications and statistics – Publications : http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_082089
- Dinsmore, P. C. et Cabanis-Brewin, J. (2006). The AMA handbook of project management. New York : AMACOM.
- Druskat, V. U. et Kayes, D. C. (2000). Learning versus performance in short-term project teams. Small Group Research, 31, 328-353.
- Druskat, V. U. et Pescosolido, A. (2002). The content of effective teamwork mental models in self-managing teams: Ownership, learning and heedful interrelating. Human Relations, 55, 283-314.
- Dunn, D. S., McCarthy, M. A., Baker, S., Halonen, J. S. et Hill, G. W., IV. (2007). Quality benchmarks in undergraduate psychology programs. American Psychologist, 62, 650-670.
- Earley, P. C. et Gibson, C. B. (2002). Multinational work teams. Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
- Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350-385.
- Edmondson, A. C. (2003). Managing the risk of learning. Dans M. A. West, D. Tjosvold et K. G. Smith (dir.), International handbook of organizational teamwork and cooperative working (p. 255-275). West Sussex, Royaume-Uni : Wiley.
- Edwards, R. (2005, février). Learning in context – within and across domains. Communication présentée au Economic & Social Research Council [ESRC] Teaching and Learning Research Thematic Seminar Series, Seminar 1: Contexts, Communities, Networks: Mobilising Learners’ Resources and Relationships in Different Domains, Glasgow, Royaume-Uni.
- Engeström, Y. et Blackler, F. H. M. (2005). On the life of the object. Organization, 12, 307-330.
- Engeström, Y., Engeström, R. et Karkkainen, T. (1995). Polycontextuality and boundary crossing in expert cognition: Learning and problem solving in complex work activities. Learning and Instruction, 5, 319-336.
- Engeström, Y., Virkkunen, J., Helle, M., Pihlaja, J. et Poikela, R. (1996). Change laboratory as a tool for transforming work. Lifelong Learning in Europe, 1, 10-17.
- Evans, C. R. et Jarvis, P. A. (1980). Group cohesion: A review and re-evaluation. Small Group Behavior, 11, 359-370.
- Forgues, D. (2008). Using boundary objects to generate better value in the construction industry. Thèse de doctorat non publiée, Université de Salford, Royaume-Uni.
- Fruchter, R. (1999). A/E/C teamwork: A collaborative design and learning space. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 13, 261-269.
- Gersick, C. J. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Towards a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 9-41.
- Gouran, D. C., Brown, D. et Henry, C. (1978). Behavioral correlates of perception of quality in decision making discussions. Communication Monographs, 45, 51-63.
- Green, S. D. (1996). Smart value management: A group decision support methodology for building design. Thèse de doctorat non publiée, Université de Reading, Royaume-Uni.
- Hackman, R. J. (1976). Group influence on individuals. Dans M. D. Dunnette (dir.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (p. 1455-1525). Chicago : Rand-McNally.
- Hackman, R. J. (1987). The design of work teams. Dans J. W. Lorsch (dir.), Handbook of organizational behavior (p. 315-342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice-Hall.
- Hackman, R. J. (1990). Groups that work (and those that don’t): Creating conditions for effective teamwork. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
- Hardy, C. et Clegg, S. R. (1996). Some dare call it power. Dans C. Hardy et S. R. Clegg (dir.), Handbook of organization studies (p. 622-641). Londres : Sage.
- Hatchuel, A., Le Masson, P. et Weil, B. (2002). De la gestion des connaissances aux organisations orientées conception. Revue internationale des sciences sociales, 171, 29-42.
- Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink. Boston, MA : Houghton-Mifflin.
- Jay, G. M. et Willis, S. L. (1992). Influence of direct computer experience on older adults’ attidudes towards computers. Journal of Gerontology, 47, 250-257.
- Kamara, J. M., Anumba, C. J. et Evbuomwan, N. F. O. (2000). Establishing and processing client requirements – A key aspect of concurrent engineering in construction. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 7, 15-28.
- Kamara, J. M., Anumba, C. J. et Evbuornwan, N. F. O. (2002). Capturing client requirements in construction projects. Cornwall, Royaume-Uni : Thomas Telford.
- Kaptelinin, V. et Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. Boston : MIT Press.
- Kear, K. (2004). Peer learning using asynchronous discussion systems in distance education. Open Learning, 19, 151-164.
- Keller, R. T. (1986). Predictors of the performance of project groups in R&D organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 715-726.
- Kernan, M. C. et Howard, G. S. (1990). Computer anxiety and computer attitudes: An investigation of construct and predictive validity issues. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 50, 681-690.
- Koskela, L. (2000). An exploration towards a production theory and its application to construction (VTT Publications 408). Espoo, Finlande : Technical Research Center of Finland.
- Koskela, L. et Howell, G. (2008). The underlying theory of project management is obsolete. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 36, 22-34.
- Koskinen, K. U. (2004). Knowledge management to improve project communication and implementation. Project Management Journal, 35, 13-19.
- Koskinen, K. U. et Mäkinen, S. (2009). Role of boundary objects in negotiations of project contracts. International Journal of Project Management, 27, 31-38.
- Kostof, S. (1986). The architect. New York : Oxford University Press.
- Lambert, L. R. (2006). R&D project management: Adapting to technological risk and uncertainty. Dans P. C. Dinsmore et J. Cabanis-Brewin (dir.), The AMA handbook of project management (p. 458-468). New York : AMACOM.
- Larsson, N. (2002). The integrated design process. Report on a national workshop. Ottawa, Canada : Natural Resources Canada.
- Lawson, B. (2006). How designers think: The design process demystified. Oxford, Royaume-Uni : Architectural Press.
- Leonard-Barton, D. (1995). Wellsprings of knowledge: Building and sustaining the sources of innovation. Watertown, MA : Harvard Business School Press.
- Lepine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Jackson, C. L., Mathieu, J. E. et Saul, J. R. (2008). A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: Tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61, 273-307.
- Löhnert, G., Dalkowski, A. et Sutter, W. (2003). Integrated design process: A guideline for sustainable and solar-optimised building design (version 1.1). Berlin, Allemagne / Zug, Suisse : International Energy Agency.
- Lynn, G. S. et Reilly, R. R. (2000). Measuring team performance. Research Technology Management, 43, 48-56.
- MacCoun, R. J. (1996). Sexual orientation and military cohesion: A critical review of the evidence. Dans G. Herek, J. Jobe et R. E. Carney (dir.), Out in Force – Sexual orientation and the military (p. 157-176). Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
- Markham, T., Larmer, J. et Ravitz, J. (2003). Handbook of project based learning (2e éd.). Novato, CA : Buck Institute for Education.
- McPherson, M. A. et Nunes, J. B. (2008). Critical issues for e-learning delivery: What may seem obvious is not always put into practice. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 1-13.
- Morgeson, F. P. et Hofmann, D. A. (1999). The structure and function of collective constructs: Implications for multilevel research and theory development. Academy of Management Review, 24, 249-265.
- Mullen, B. et Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210-227.
- Niiniluoto, I. (1993). The aim and structure of applied research. Erkenntnis, 38, 1-21.
- Olson, G. M., Teasley, S., Bietz, M. J. et Cogburn, D. L. (2002). Collaboratories to support distributed science: The example of international HIV/AIDS research. ACM International Conference Series, 30, 44-51.
- Pinto, J. K. et Trailer, J. W. (1999). Essentials of project control. Newtown Square, PA : Project Management Institute.
- Project Management Institute [PMI]. (2002). Project manager competency development framework. Newtown Square, PA : auteur.
- Project Management Institute [PMI]. (2004). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (3e éd.). Newtown Square, PA : auteur.
- Ratté, S. et Caron, J. (2004). Le Web pour enseigner par projets et favoriser la collaboration. Revue internationale des technologies en pédagogie universitaire, 1(2), 27-34.
- Rizzuto, T. E. et Reeves, J. (2007). A multidisciplinary meta-analysis of human barriers to technology implementation. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 59, 226-240.
- Rosenberg, L. C. (1991). Update on National Science Foundation funding of the “Collaboratory.” Communications of the ACM, 34, 83.
- Salazar, A. J. (1997). Communication effects on small group decision-making: Homogeneity and task as moderators of the communication-performance relationship. Western Journal of Communication, 61, 35-65.
- Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
- Sense, A. J. (2003). Learning generators: Project teams re-conceptualized. Project Management Journal, 34, 4-12.
- Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3e éd.). Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
- Springer, L., Stanne, M. E. et Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69, 21-51.
- Star, S. L. et Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, translations and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907-1939. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387-420.
- Stewart, G. L. (2006). A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. Journal of Management, 32, 29-54.
- Sundstrom, E., McIntyre, M., Halfhill, T. et Richards, H. (2000). Work groups: From the Hawthorne studies to work teams of the 1990s and beyond. Group Dynamics, 4, 44-67.
- Villeneuve, M. (1997). Vérification de la relation entre les différentes dimensions de la cohésion et la performance des équipes de travail. Thèse de doctorat non publiée, Université de Montréal, Canada.
- Vinck, D. et Laureillard, P. (1995, décembre). Coordination par les objets dans les processus de conception. Communication présentée aux Journées CSI [Centre de Sociologie de l’Innovation] : Représenter, Attribuer, Coordonner, Paris, France.
- Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.
- Weick, K. E. et Roberts, K. H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 357-381.
- Wilson, J. M., Goodman, P. S. et Cronin, M. A. (2007). Group learning. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1041-1059.
- Zager, D. (2002). Collaboration as an activity. Coordinating with pseudo-collective objects. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 11, 181-204.