PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 29, 2026Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education0 citations

Do game-based assessments improve team formation? Evidence from a multidisciplinary intervention in undergraduate courses

View Full Paper
SRSchweitzer RocutsMFMarc Allier Forment

Key Points

  • The study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of game-based assessments in improving team formation for multidisciplinary courses.
  • Conducted a feasibility study comparing GBA-informed teams with convenience-grouped teams.
  • Engaged seven GBA-informed and twenty-seven convenience-based teams across Medicine and Engineering courses.
  • Teams completed the same project and were evaluated using a common rubric.
  • Analyzed interdisciplinary integration and transdisciplinary attainment using statistical tests.
  • No significant advantage was found for GBA-informed teams on any evaluated outcome.
  • Misalignment between competency measures and required relational skills limited effectiveness.
  • Only 19.75% of students received comprehensive profiles, affecting team dynamics and statistical power.
  • Qualitative feedback suggested GBA supported self-efficacy rather than team optimizations.

Abstract

Purpose This study examines whether game-based assessment (GBA) can improve multidisciplinary team formation in undergraduate project courses. Specifically, it tests whether composing teams using competency profiles from a brief video-game diagnostic of applied mathematics and problem solving (Go Timmy Go, GTG) yields better project outcomes than convenience-based grouping, under normal course conditions. Design/methodology/approach A feasibility-focused, course-embedded intervention compared seven GBA-informed teams with twenty-seven convenience-grouped teams across two paired undergraduate courses (Medicine and Engineering) at a Colombian university. All teams completed the same multidisciplinary project and were evaluated by a panel using a common rubric. Pre-specified, team-level analyses assessed three outcomes (disciplinary performance, interdisciplinary integration (I-level), and transdisciplinary attainment (T-level)) using difference-in-proportions tests, Fisher's exact tests, and standardized effect sizes. Findings GBA-informed teams showed no statistically or practically significant advantage on any outcome. These null results are interpreted through two mechanisms: (a) misalignment between what GTG measures (taskwork competencies) and what transdisciplinary outcomes require (socio-relational capacities such as coordination and communication), and (b) limited diagnostic coverage (19.75% of students received deep profiles), which constrained both the teaming space and statistical power. Qualitative indicators suggest GBA functioned as a formative catalyst (supporting self-efficacy and strengths recognition) rather than as a standalone team-assignment optimizer. Originality/value This is among the first pre-specified evaluations of GBA-informed team assignment under authentic course conditions. By reporting and interpreting null effects transparently, the study reframes GBA from an optimization tool to a formative resource for role negotiation, coaching, and feedback. It offers actionable guidance (including a decision checklist, integration heuristics, and cost–benefit considerations) for educators and administrators considering GBA adoption in higher education teamwork.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Rocuts et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69c8c336de0f0f753b39dd0bhttps://doi.org/10.1108/jarhe-10-2025-0842
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper