ATS Hub Field Note: Understanding the Science of Team Science for Accelerated Research in Education

Authors: Stephen M. Fiore and Rebecca Griffiths

doi.org/10.51388/20.500.12265/325

Abstract: Teamwork, not just technical expertise, determines whether interdisciplinary education research succeeds. The Learning Sciences have always been interdisciplinary, bringing together researchers, educators, and developers who hold different epistemologies, values, and standards of evidence. These differences often show up as teamwork problems that weaken trust, communication, and knowledge integration. This field note introduces the Science of Team Science (SciTS), a cross-disciplinary field that emerged in the early 2000s to develop evidence-based ways of improving scientific collaboration. Drawing on SciTS, the authors distinguish taskwork, the discipline-specific scientific activity of a team, from teamwork, the attitudes, behaviors, and cognition that make coordination possible. They note that most scientific training addresses taskwork alone. The note then describes core teamwork competencies in three areas. Knowledge-based competencies are transactive memory systems, shared mental models, and team metacognition. Skill-based competencies are active listening, performance monitoring, and shared leadership. Attitudinal competencies are psychological safety, trust, and cohesion. The authors argue that initiatives such as Accelerate, Transform, and Scale need professional development that builds both kinds of competence, so that diverse teams can achieve breakthrough discoveries and translate them into practice.

Suggested Citation: Fiore, S.M. & Griffiths, R. (2026). Understanding the Science of Team Science for Accelerated Research in Education. ATS Hub Field Note Series. doi.org/10.51388/20.500.12265/325

This material was developed under The Institute of Education Sciences Award R305N250006 from the U.S. Department of Education. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IES.