Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Active learning techniques improve teamwork outcomes in engineering courses, highlighting psychological safety's role.
In our respective first-year engineering design courses, both authors incorporate role-play as an instructional strategy to emphasize the importance and practice of psychological safety in teams. This active learning approach is used to stimulate higher-order thinking, learning at the affective domain, and deepen students' understanding of team dynamics. Teamwork is a vital professional skill and a key student outcome identified by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). At one institution, role-play scenarios are designed to highlight common team dysfunctions, helping students anticipate and navigate typical challenges in collaboration. At the other, scenarios focus on recognizing and practicing specific behaviors that support psychological safety. Despite these differences, both approaches share the goal of helping students internalize and prioritize psychological safety—defined as "a shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking." As part of the 2025 FYEE GIFTS session, the authors will share samples of both types of role-play scenarios. The team dysfunction scenarios serve as a lead-in activity to the Team Safety Brief, a tool designed to bridge the gap in students' collaborative skills. The behavioral scenarios are organized into three thematic modules: (1) Treating every idea as having potential to contribute to a positive outcome, (2) Questioning an idea to obtain valuable insight, (3) Applying the brake to improve a decision. Although the approaches vary, both have demonstrated promising results, including strong student engagement. Recognizing that psychological safety is an enduring skill that requires ongoing development, the authors will also share practical strategies for following up and reinforcing learning from these role-play activities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mattjik et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: