Introduction: We tentatively suggest that a protocol developed to build teamwork skills among undergraduates may have applications to education and training for science teams.

The Protocol: The Teamwork Competency Training (TWC) protocol is a framework that can be customized to work with any class or content where a team-based approach makes sense. The protocol begins by introducing individuals to a standard model of good teaming practices and strategies for addressing common issues. Groups are then formed and assigned a project. Groups then create team charters and begin work on their projects. Groups conduct explicit reflection on their performance at roughly the ⅓, ⅔, and after the final stage of the project. These reflections allow recalibration of team goals and practices (⅓ and ⅔ check-ins) as well an opportunity to articulate takeaways for future teaming experiences (final check-in). This combination of activities provides students with i) an initial theoretical framework they can use to make sense of their experiences, ii) significant and salient teaming experiences and iii) meaningful opportunities to reflect on their experiences in ways that allow them to alter their practices and discover the impact of those alterations (deploying Kolb’s model of engaged learning) and finally, a chance to organize their thinking about what they have learned in way that makes it portable to new teaming activities.

Results: Preliminary evaluation of the protocol (both qualitative and quantitative) shows generally positive responses from both instructors and students (see reference 1 below). While feedback indicates areas for improvement, there is good reason to believe that the protocol is improving students' and instructors' experiences in teaching and developing teamwork skills.

Generalizing: Contemporary support for science teams (e.g. reference 3 below) often involves the creation of explicit team ‘contracts’ along with reminders that these contracts are living documents that should be revisited on a regular basis. Such support does not always provide a general model of what it is to work well as a team. As a result, teams can end up reflecting (if they do it at all) in an ad hoc manner that may not be timely or leverage best practices from the literature. We suggest that something like the protocol described above would address these concerns. It introduces a shared model and language (based on current best practices) for discussing team performance. It mandates regular ‘check-ins’ that will facilitate timely individual and group reflection on team performance. Finally, given the pacing of much pre-award grant development and post-award grant implementation, there are natural places for a PI or project manager to implement the check-ins called for by the protocol.