This module builds the skills and frameworks for working in effective, diverse, and interdisciplinary research teams. Through real case studies from science and engineering, you’ll learn evidence-based strategies for collaboration, practice peer evaluation with CATME, and develop a Team Charter that addresses the actual challenges interdisciplinary teams face.
Primary Reference: Bennett, L.M. & Gadlin, H. Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide, NIH.
| # | Lecture | Case Study | Field Guide Ch. | Deliverable |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Team Formation & Shared Standards | Mars Climate Orbiter | 4–5 | Team Charter Draft |
| 2 | CATME & Peer Evaluation | — | — | CATME Rater Practice |
| 3 | Cross-Disciplinary Communication | AlphaFold | 6–7 | Skills Inventory |
| 4 | Credit, Conflict & Accountability | CRISPR Patent Dispute | 8, 10 | Contribution Plan |
| 5 | Trust Under Pressure & Open Science | COVID Vaccine + Human Genome Project | 5, 9, 12 | Final Team Charter |
Two threads build across the module:
Team Charter (evolves across 3 lectures)
| Lecture | Milestone |
|---|---|
| 1 | Draft: communication protocols, roles, meeting schedule, problem-raising process |
| 3 | Revision: updated with skills inventory and communication needs |
| 5 | Final: comprehensive document incorporating CATME insights, contribution plan, and workflow design |
CATME Peer Evaluation (4 cycles across the semester)
| Evaluation | Timing | Grade Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Rater Practice | Week 2 | None |
| Evaluation 1 | After Module 1 | None — formative |
| Evaluation 2 | After Module 2 | None — formative |
| Evaluation 3 | After Module 3 | None — formative |
| Evaluation 4 | End of semester | Multiplier applied |
Research and teaching experience consistently show that teams of 3 produce the best dynamics in project-based courses. With teams of 4, one person often disengages; with teams of 5, the problem compounds. Three is large enough for genuine collaboration and diverse perspectives but small enough that everyone must contribute — there’s nowhere to hide.
For a class of ~25 students, this means approximately 8 teams of 3 (with one team of 4 if enrollment doesn’t divide evenly). Teams stay together for the full semester. Continuity matters: the investment you make in learning to work together pays off only if you stick with it through the difficult middle phase.
Lecture 1: Team Formation & Shared Standards</summary>
Case Study: Mars Climate Orbiter (1999) — A $125 million spacecraft lost because NASA’s navigation team used metric units while Lockheed Martin provided data in imperial. The root cause wasn’t the math error — it was the failure of systems engineering to detect it, compounded by ignored warnings, team handoffs, and understaffing.
Case discussion (~20 min): What organizational conditions allowed a known problem to go unaddressed for 10 months? How does this connect to the Field Guide’s argument about psychological safety?
Team formation & ice-breaker (~20 min): Teams are announced. Interview exercise: each team member interviews another for 5 minutes about their background, why they chose this program, their research interests, and something unexpected about themselves (favorite breakfast cereal, hidden talent, etc.). Then introduce your partner to the group.
“Unit conversion” exercise (~15 min): Each team member identifies one disciplinary assumption they hold that teammates from other fields might not share. (e.g., What does “validated” mean in your field? What counts as a “complete” deliverable?)
Team Charter drafting (~25 min): Begin drafting your charter with specific protocols for communication tools, response time expectations, meeting schedule, and a process for raising concerns.
Team Charter Draft (due next week) — Must include: communication tools and response time expectations, role assignments, meeting schedule, and a specific protocol for what happens when someone notices a problem.
</details>
Lecture 2: CATME & Peer Evaluation</summary>
This lecture introduces CATME as both a practical tool you’ll use this semester and a window into how peer accountability works in professional research teams.
The biggest effect of peer evaluation isn’t the grade adjustment — it’s that you know it’s coming. Research consistently shows that the anticipation of peer evaluation changes team behavior more than the evaluation itself. When you know your teammates will independently rate you on specific observable behaviors, the social cost of free-riding becomes concrete.
CATME evaluates teams across five behaviorally anchored dimensions. Each dimension describes specific, observable behaviors at each level — you’re not rating how much you “like” a teammate, but whether their actions match particular descriptions.
The Five CATME Teamwork Dimensions:
In a perfectly functioning team, each member is expected to be at the middle description. Save the higher ratings for teammates who truly exceeded expectations, and the lower ratings for when expectations genuinely were not met.
A rating of 3 means: “This person did their job well. They met deadlines, contributed their share, and communicated effectively.” That is a good rating. It describes a competent, reliable teammate.
A rating of 5 means: “This person did something exceptional — they architected the core approach, resolved a critical problem that stalled the team, or contributed far beyond their share.” This should be rare.
A rating of 1–2 means: “This person’s work required others to redo it, or they didn’t engage meaningfully.” This should also be rare — and if you’re giving it, you should leave specific comments explaining why.
If you rate everyone a 4 or 5, you’re not providing useful information. You’re making it impossible for the instructor to identify teams that need help, and you’re robbing teammates of honest feedback that could help them grow.
CATME allows peer-to-peer comments that are released anonymously to teammates. Good feedback is:
Consider the compliment sandwich for written feedback: acknowledge something positive, suggest an area for improvement, and end with encouragement or confidence in future work.
| Evaluation | Timing | Purpose | Grade Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rater Practice | Week 2 | Learn the system; practice with hypothetical teammates | None |
| Evaluation 1 | After Module 1 presentations | Early formative feedback; establish baseline | None — purely feedback |
| Evaluation 2 | After Module 2 deliverable | Mid-semester check; identify issues while there’s time to change | None — purely feedback |
| Evaluation 3 | After Module 3 deliverable | Late formative; final chance to adjust | None — purely feedback |
| Evaluation 4 | End of semester | Full-semester summative evaluation | Grade multiplier applied |
Why only the final evaluation affects grades: Early evaluations are about learning and improving — not punishment. If you receive lower ratings early on, that’s useful information, not a penalty. The system is designed so you can act on feedback and improve before it matters for your grade.
Completion is mandatory. Every team member must complete each evaluation by the deadline. Late submissions receive a 5-point deduction on the associated project grade — because your teammates’ grade adjustments cannot be calculated until everyone has submitted.
After receiving your CATME feedback, you’ll answer three questions (submitted individually on Blackboard):
These reflections are private (only the instructor sees them) and are designed to help you process feedback constructively rather than defensively.
CATME automatically flags unusual rating patterns for the instructor:
These flags trigger instructor review and conversation, not automatic penalties.
The final CATME evaluation produces a grade multiplier applied to team project scores. Here’s how it works in practice:
The multiplier drops self-evaluations from the calculation. Your grade adjustment is based entirely on how your teammates rated you, not on how you rated yourself.
Example: If your team earns 90 on a project and your multiplier is 1.02, your individual score is 91.8. If your multiplier is 0.95, your score is 85.5.
CATME walkthrough (~15 min): Demonstration of the system, five dimensions, and rating scales. Key message: the middle is the expectation, not the floor.
Rater Practice (~25 min): Complete CATME’s game-based rating simulation with hypothetical teammates. Pay attention to where the system tells you your ratings were too generous or too harsh.
Debrief (~15 min): Where did your ratings diverge from the “correct” answers? What made it hard to give a 2 or a 3? Why do we default to inflated ratings?
Discussion: Giving honest feedback (~25 min): Practice writing one positive and one constructive comment for a hypothetical teammate. Workshop the comments in pairs: Is it specific? Is it actionable? Is it respectful? Connection to peer review in Module 2 (scientific writing).
Complete CATME Rater Practice before next class. First formative peer evaluation opens after Module 1 presentations.
</details>
Lecture 3: Cross-Disciplinary Communication</summary>
Case Study: AlphaFold (2016–2024) — DeepMind built a small interdisciplinary team of structural biologists, physicists, and machine learning researchers to solve protein folding. The team won the 2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry after predicting structures for over 200 million proteins. Success required genuine integration — the ML researchers built biological knowledge into the neural network architecture, not just applied generic AI to biological data.
Case discussion (~20 min): What does “genuine integration” look like compared to dividing work into disciplinary silos? Why was a measurable shared goal (CASP competition) important?
Skills inventory exercise (~30 min): Each team member presents (3 min each): What methods, tools, and frameworks do you bring? What are you not comfortable leading? What terminology from your field might confuse others?
“Translation” exercise (~15 min): Pick one concept from the team’s project. Each member explains how they’d approach it from their discipline. Identify overlaps and gaps.
Team Charter revision (~15 min): Update your charter based on what you learned about each other’s strengths and communication needs.
Skills Inventory (one page per team) — Lists each member’s expertise, tools, blind spots, and preferred communication style. Submitted via Blackboard.
</details>
Lecture 4: Credit, Conflict & Accountability</summary>
Case Study: CRISPR Patent Dispute (2012–present) — Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier demonstrated CRISPR gene editing in a test tube (2012). Feng Zhang demonstrated it working inside mammalian cells months later. Doudna and Charpentier won the Nobel Prize (2020), but the Broad Institute holds the key U.S. patents. The dispute involves over $100 million in licensing revenues and remains unresolved.
Case discussion (~25 min): Who “invented” CRISPR? How can scientific credit (Nobel) and legal credit (patents) diverge? What would an early contribution agreement have changed?
Connection to Module 4 (Ethics) (~10 min): Brief discussion of the Rosalind Franklin parallel and gender dynamics in credit allocation.
CATME midterm reflection (~15 min): By this point, students have completed 1–2 formative CATME evaluations. Teams review their anonymized feedback. Discussion prompt: Where did your self-rating differ from peer ratings? What specific change will you make for the second half of the semester? Share your reflection goals with your team.
Drafting a contribution plan (~30 min): Using the Field Guide’s “Prenup for Scientists” as a template, teams draft a contribution and authorship plan for the final project. Specify: who leads each section, how to handle unequal contributions, and how to resolve credit disagreements.
Contribution and Authorship Plan (one page per team) — Specifies individual responsibilities, credit allocation principles, and a process for resolving disputes.
</details>
Lecture 5: Trust Under Pressure & Open Science</summary>
Case Studies: COVID-19 Vaccine (2020) and Human Genome Project (1990–2003)
COVID Vaccine: BioNTech (1,300 employees) and Pfizer (70,000 employees) developed the first mRNA vaccine in 11 months. BioNTech’s co-founder instructed his team to “share everything” with Pfizer before the legal agreement was finalized — subordinating financial self-protection to speed while carrying €400 million in debt.
Human Genome Project: A $3 billion public effort competed with Craig Venter’s privately funded Celera Genomics. The public project committed to releasing all data freely within 24 hours (the “Bermuda Agreement”). Celera used publicly available data while keeping its own database proprietary. Both claimed to finish at roughly the same time.
Case discussion: Trust (~20 min): What conditions made BioNTech’s radical transparency possible? When is this level of trust visionary vs. irresponsible?
Case discussion: Competition and openness (~15 min): Was it ethical for Celera to use public HGP data while keeping its own data proprietary? How does this connect to current debates about open science and AI model access?
Parallel vs. sequential work (~15 min): Teams identify one aspect of their final project where they’re working sequentially and design a way to parallelize it. What trust is required?
Final Team Charter (~30 min): Revise and finalize your charter incorporating everything from the module: communication protocols (Lecture 1), CATME insights (Lectures 2 & 4), skills inventory (Lecture 3), contribution plan (Lecture 4), and workflow design (Lecture 5).
Final Team Charter — Comprehensive document incorporating all revisions from the module. Submitted via Blackboard.
</details>
When the instructor creates the class and uploads the roster, CATME automatically creates your account using your .edu email. You’ll receive an email with instructions to set your password. If you don’t receive it, check spam, then use the “Forgot your password?” link at catme.org. The most common issue is using a different email address than the one your instructor uploaded.
When entering your schedule in the Team-Maker survey, mark the times you are BUSY and unavailable — not the times you are free. This is the opposite of how tools like When2Meet work, and it’s the most common mistake. Make sure to mark your class meeting times as busy.
The survey also asks about leadership preferences (shared leadership, prefer to lead, prefer to follow). Be honest — this information helps form more balanced teams.
| Rating | What It Means | When to Use It |
|---|---|---|
| 5 — Exceptional | Went far beyond expectations; led critical aspects of the work; resolved problems others couldn’t | Rare — reserve for truly outstanding contributions |
| 4 — Above expectations | Consistently exceeded what was asked; proactively improved the team’s work | When someone genuinely did more than their share |
| 3 — Meets expectations | Did their job well; met deadlines; contributed their fair share; communicated effectively | This is the baseline for a functioning team |
| 2 — Below expectations | Needed reminders; work required significant revision by others; inconsistent participation | When someone consistently fell short |
| 1 — Did not contribute | Work had to be completely redone; did not engage meaningfully | Rare — and should be accompanied by specific comments |
| Evaluation | Opens | Purpose | Grade Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rater Practice | Week 2 | Learn the system | None |
| Evaluation 1 | After Module 1 | Early formative feedback | None |
| Evaluation 2 | After Module 2 | Mid-semester check | None |
| Evaluation 3 | After Module 3 | Late formative | None |
| Evaluation 4 | End of semester | Full-semester summative | Multiplier applied |
After each evaluation, complete the individual reflection on Blackboard (3 questions, ~10 minutes).
| If your team is experiencing… | Read this |
|---|---|
| Communication breakdowns | Field Guide Ch. 7; AlphaFold case study |
| One person doing all the work | Field Guide Ch. 11 (One Bad Apple); CATME midterm data |
| Difficulty finding meeting times | Baumgartner et al., section on tools and infrastructure |
| Disagreements about direction | Field Guide Ch. 10 (Conflict is Normal); HGP case study |
| Unclear credit or contributions | Field Guide Ch. 8 and Appendix; CRISPR case study |
| Incompatible writing styles | Baumgartner et al., section on collaborative writing |
| Lack of trust or psychological safety | Field Guide Ch. 5; COVID vaccine case study |
By the end of this module, students will be able to:
» Detailed assignment instructions, rubrics, and submission portals are available on the course Blackboard site.