不管在業界或是學界，跨領域團隊（Interdisciplinary team）在觀點、知識與技術的多樣性已經逐漸受到重視，能帶來創新或解決越來越複雜的棘手問題（Wicked problem ）。因此，跨領域團隊創新課程在全球逐漸成為大學教育的重點課程。此類型課程不僅增加學生與不同領域合作的經驗，也期望帶來超越同領域課程的學習表現。然而，此類型課程的參與學生來自不同的領域，在專案執行的過程中，衝突與摩擦往往是難以避免的。在此，良好的團隊合作氣氛（Teamwork climate），一方面增加知識與觀點的交流，有利於創新的產生 ; 一方面能幫助團隊良好的調解衝突，對於跨領域團隊創新課程是非常重要的。因此，本研究期望藉由團隊組成的探討，提出能均衡提升團隊合作氣氛的分組建議。其中，團隊的組成因素針對與成員的互動較有影響力的成員個性，用五大人格（Big five）為指標。並以屬性中心（Attribute-centered）與個人中心（Person-centered）的兩種觀點分析，暸解團隊組成與合作氣氛之間的影響關係。
本研究選定七堂成功大學開設的跨領域團隊創新課程進行資料的蒐集與分析，參與者共165位，34組團隊。結果顯示，情緒穩定性對於此類型課程的團隊合作氣氛有顯著的影響。當團隊的情緒穩定強度（Team personality elevation of emotional stability）越高、低情緒穩定成員占比越低或是情緒穩定最小值越高時，團隊皆可能會有較好的合作氣氛。另一方面，當團隊有五項人格皆高的彈性型（Resilient type）成員存在時，也相比於沒有的團隊，有著顯著的良好表現。根據此研究結果，本研究也提出能實際應用於課堂的分組建議步驟，期望可以提供未來的相關課程參考，為學生在跨領域創新的學習上帶來更好的效益。

The idea of using interdisciplinary teams to solve more complex problems or generate innovations is getting popular in both practical industries and academia, and the interdisciplinary design and innovation course has thus become a trending course in the universities. In the course, the diversity of the knowledge, expertise, and perspectives in teams is expected to result in a better creative performance. However, the differences among members also lead to conflicts and friction. The importance of a great teamwork climate is therefore emphasized in the courses. Through investigating the relationship between team personality composition and teamwork climate, the present study hopes to enhance the courses’ overall teamwork climate by proposing a grouping strategy for teachers and educators. As for the team personality data, big five was used to evaluate the participants’ traits, and both attribute-centered and person-centered perspectives were included in the analysis.
The samples are from 7 interdisciplinary design and innovation courses in a comprehensive university in Taiwan, including 165 participants, 34 teams in total. The results show that a team’s emotional stability and the member of resilient type personality (score high in all five attributes) have a positive impact on its teamwork climate. And with these results, an applicable guideline in grouping to enhance the overall teamwork climate is proposed. The study hopes to contribute to the interdisciplinary design education area, served as a reference to help the teachers and educators bring better learning experience and performance of the course.

Anderson, M. H. (2009). The role of group personality composition in the emergence of task and relationship conflict within groups. Journal of Management and Organization, 15(1), 82.

Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation: development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 19(3), 235-258.

Anewalt, K. (2003). Utilizing interdisciplinary teams in teaching e-commerce. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 19(2), 288-296.

Asendorpf, J. B., Borkenau, P., Ostendorf, F., & Van Aken, M. A. (2001). Carving personality description at its joints: Confirmation of three replicable personality prototypes for both children and adults. European Journal of Personality, 15(3), 169-198.

Baer, M., Oldham, G. A., Jacobsohn, G. C., & Hollingshead, A. B. (2008). The Personality Composition of Teams and Creativity: The Moderating Role of Team Creative Confidence. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42(4), 255-282. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2008.tb01299.x

Bannerot, R., Kastor, R., & Ruchhoeft, P. (2010). Multidisciplinary capstone design at the University of Houston. Advances in Engineering Education, 2(1), n1.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta‐analysis. Personnel psychology, 44(1), 1-26.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between the big five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal of applied psychology, 78(1), 111.

Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of applied psychology, 83(3), 377.

Bekele, R. (2006). Computer-assisted learner group formation based on personality traits.

Beyerlein, M. M., Johnson, D. A., & Beyerlein, S. T. (1995). Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams: Knowledge work in teams, Vol. 2: Elsevier Science/JAI Press.

Boni, A. A., Weingart, L. R., & Evenson, S. (2009).
Innovation in an academic setting: Designing and leading a business through market-focused, interdisciplinary teams. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(3), 407-417.

Bradley, B. H., Klotz, A. C., Postlethwaite, B. E., & Brown, K. G. (2013). Ready to rumble: How team personality composition and task conflict interact to improve performance. Journal of applied psychology, 98(2), 385.

Brodbeck, F. C., Kerschreiter, R., Mojzisch, A., Frey, D., & Schulz‐Hardt, S. (2002). The dissemination of critical, unshared information in decision‐making groups: the effects of pre‐discussion dissent. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32(1), 35-56.

Campion, M. A., Papper, E. M., & Medsker, G. J. (1996). Relations between work team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel psychology, 49(2), 429-452.

Cartwright, D. (1968). The nature of group cohesiveness. Group dynamics: Research and theory, 91, 109.

Cattell, R. B. (1946). Description and measurement of personality.

Chattalas, M., Koles, B., & Sik, A. (2016). Creativity in cross-domain collaborations: searching factors to increase efficiency. Management Research Review.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). Personality in adulthood: a six-year longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of personality and social psychology, 54(5), 853.

Council, D. (2015). The design process: What is the double diamond. online] The Design Council. Available at: https://www. designcouncil. org. uk/news-opinion/design-process-what-double-diamond (Accessed 21.11. 2018).

Daniels, M., Cajander, Å., Pears, A., & Clear, T. (2010). Engineering education research in practice: Evolving use of open ended group projects as a pedagogical strategy for developing skills in global collaboration. International Journal of Engineering Education, 26(4), 795-806.

Domik, G. (2009). Who is on my team: building strong teams in interdisciplinary visualization courses. Paper presented at the ACM SIGGRAPH ASIA 2009 Educators Program.

Donnellan, M. B., & Robins, R. W. (2010). Resilient, overcontrolled, and undercontrolled personality types: Issues and controversies. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(11), 1070-1083.

Drach-Zahavy, A., & Somech, A. (2001). Understanding team innovation: The role of team processes and structures. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5(2), 111.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative science quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.

Evans, C., & Dion, K. (1997). Group cohesion and group performance: Ameta-analysis. Small Group Research, 121-129.
Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Dimensions of personality: 16, 5 or 3?—Criteria for a taxonomic paradigm. Personality and individual differences, 12(8), 773-790.

Felin, T., & Hesterly, W. S. (2007). The knowledge-based view, nested heterogeneity, and new value creation: Philosophical considerations on the locus of knowledge. Academy of management review, 32(1), 195-218.

Friedkin, N. E., & Slater, M. R. (1994). School leadership and performance: A social network approach. Sociology of education, 139-157.

Gebert, D., Boerner, S., & Kearney, E. (2006). Cross-functionality and innovation in new product development teams: A dilemmatic structure and its consequences for the management of diversity. European journal of work and organizational psychology, 15(4), 431-458.

Ghiselli, E. E., & Lodahl, T. M. (1958). Patterns of managerial traits and group effectiveness. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 57(1), 61.

Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological assessment, 4(1), 26.

Griffin, A., & Hauser, J. R. (1992). Patterns of communication among marketing, engineering and manufacturing—A comparison between two new product teams. Management science, 38(3), 360-373.

Guenole, N., & Chernyshenko, O. S. (2005). The Suitability of Goldberg's Big Five IPIP Personality Markers in New Zealand: A Dimensionality, Bias, and Criterion Validity Evaluation. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 34(2).

Gully, S. M., Devine, D. J., & Whitney, D. J. (1995). A meta-analysis of cohesion and performance: Effects of level of analysis and task interdependence. Small Group Research, 26(4), 497-520.

Hambrick, D. C., Cho, T. S., & Chen, M.-J. (1996). The influence of top management team heterogeneity on firms' competitive moves. Administrative science quarterly, 659-684.

Hauptman, O., & Hirji, K. K. (1996). The influence of process concurrency on project outcomes in product development: An empirical study of cross-functional teams. IEEE transactions on Engineering Management, 43(2), 153-164.

Hirschfeld, R. R., Jordan, M. H., Thomas, C. H., & Feild, H. S. (2008). Observed leadership potential of personnel in a team setting: Big five traits and proximal factors as predictors. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16(4), 385-402.

Hoegl, M., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2001). Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization science, 12(4), 435-449.

Howe, S. (2010). Where Are We Now? Statistics on Capstone Courses Nationwide. Advances in Engineering Education, 2(1), n1.

Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: a comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of applied psychology, 94(5), 1128.

Jiji, L. M., Schonfeld, I. S., & Smith, G. A. (2015). Capstone interdisciplinary team project: a requirement for the MS in sustainability degree. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 16(2), 187-199. doi:10.1108/ijshe-02-2013-0015

Katz, R., & Allen, T. J. (1982). Investigating the Not Invented Here (NIH) syndrome: A look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R & D Project Groups. R&d Management, 12(1), 7-20.

Kenrick, D. T., & Funder, D. C. (1988). Profiting from controversy: Lessons from the person-situation debate. American psychologist, 43(1), 23.

Kivimaki, M., & Elovainio, M. (1999). A short version of the Team Climate Inventory: Development and psychometric properties. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 72(2), 241-246.

LePine, J. A. (2003). Team adaptation and postchange performance: effects of team composition in terms of members' cognitive ability and personality. Journal of applied psychology, 88(1), 27.

Levinson, B., & Thornton, K. (2003). Managing interdisciplinary research: Lessons learned from the EPASTAR/NSF/USDA Water and Watersheds Research Program. Paper presented at the First Interagency Conference on Research in the Watersheds. US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. http://www. tucson. ars. ag. gov/icrw/Proceedings/Levinson. pdf.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Muchinsky, P. M., & Monahan, C. J. (1987). What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of vocational behavior, 31(3), 268-277.

Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 27(7), 941-966.

Neuman, G. A., Wagner, S. H., & Christiansen, N. D. (1999). The relationship between work-team personality composition and the job performance of teams. Group & Organization Management, 24(1), 28-45.

O'Reilly, C. A., & Roberts, K. H. (1977). Task group structure, communication, and effectiveness in three organizations. Journal of applied psychology, 62(6), 674.

Ollis, D. F. (2004). Basic elements of multidisciplinary design courses and projects. International Journal of Engineering Education, 20(3), 391-397.

Pastel, R., Seigel, M., Zhang, W., & Mayer, A. (2015). Team building in multidisciplinary client-sponsored project courses. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 15(4), 19.

Pinto, M. B., & Pinto, J. K. (1990). Project team communication and cross-functional cooperation in new program development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 7(3), 200-212. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0737-6782(90)90004-X

Prados, J. W., Peterson, G. D., & Lattuca, L. R. (2005). Quality assurance of engineering education through accreditation: The impact of Engineering Criteria 2000 and its global influence. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 165-184.

Prewett, M. S., Brown, M. I., Goswami, A., & Christiansen, N. D. (2018). Effects of team personality composition on member performance: A multilevel perspective. Group & Organization Management, 43(2), 316-348.

Robins, R. W., John, O. P., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1996). Resilient, overcontrolled, and undercontrolled boys: Three replicable personality types. Journal of personality and social psychology, 70(1), 157.

Rodan, S., & Galunic, C. (2004). More than network structure: How knowledge heterogeneity influences managerial performance and innovativeness. Strategic Management Journal, 25(6), 541-562.

Sava, F. A., & Popa, R. I. (2011). Personality types based on the Big Five model. A cluster analysis over the Romanian population. Cognitie, Creier, Comportament/Cognition, Brain, Behavior, 15(3).

Schilpzand, M. C., Herold, D. M., & Shalley, C. E. (2011). Members’ openness to experience and teams’ creative performance. Small Group Research, 42(1), 55-76.

Schnabel, K., Asendorpf, J. B., & Ostendorf, F. (2002). Replicable types and subtypes of personality: German NEO‐PI‐R versus NEO‐FFI. European Journal of Personality, 16(S1), S7-S24.

Sheppard, K., Dominick, P., & Aronson, Z. (2003). Preparing engineering students for the new business paradigm of international teamwork and global orientation.

Shultz, B., Ketrow, S., & Urban, D. (1995). Improving decision quality in the small group. Small Group Research, 26(4), 521-541.

Smelser, W. T. (1961). Dominance as a factor in achievement and perception in cooperative problem solving interactions. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62(3), 535.

Stokes, J. P. (1983). Components of group cohesion: Intermember attraction, instrumental value, and risk taking. Small Group Behavior, 14(2), 163-173.

Stokols, D. (2006). Toward a science of transdisciplinary action research. American journal of community psychology, 38(1-2), 79-93.

Stuart, R. B. (2004). Twelve Practical Suggestions for Achieving Multicultural Competence. Professional psychology: Research and practice, 35(1), 3.

Taggar, S. (2002). Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: A multilevel model. Academy of management journal, 45(2), 315-330.

Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of applied psychology, 88(3), 500.

Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: an integrative model and research agenda. Journal of applied psychology, 89(6), 1008.

Wageman, R. (2001). How leaders foster self-managing team effectiveness: Design choices versus hands-on coaching. Organization science, 12(5), 559-577.

West, M. A. (1990). The social psychology of innovation in groups.

Wright, B. M., & Cordery, J. L. (1999). Production uncertainty as a contextual moderator of employee reactions to job design. Journal of applied psychology, 84(3), 456.

Yin, R. (1981). The Case Study Crisis: Some Answers, in «Administrative Science Quarterly», 26.

Zander, A. F. (1994). Making groups effective: Jossey-Bass.

Zheng, L., Goldberg, L. R., Zheng, Y., Zhao, Y., Tang, Y., & Liu, L. (2008). Reliability and concurrent validation of the IPIP Big-Five factor markers in China: Consistencies in factor structure between Internet-obtained heterosexual and homosexual samples. Personality and individual differences, 45(7), 649-654. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2851096/pdf/nihms-189214.pdf