subscale reliability (Forming, Storming, Norming, performing) was satisfactory to excellent (α = .72–.89;

adaptability and team orientation have positive interrelationships ( ≈.44-.67, p <.001). The results are

consistent with the existing studies that already note the significance of trust, common set of norms, and

formal procedures (e.g., Poort et al., 2020; Laaziz et al., 2023; Boud and Falchikov, 2006), yet present the

perennial problems concerning goal realisticness and resistance in the storming stage (Velarde-García et al.,

2023; Sonita and Febria, 2022). As an extension (robustness check), multiple regression indicates that norming

and forming are the best positive predictors of performing, and unmanaged storming is negatively related to

performance. Pedagogical implications can be clear team charters, feedback procedures that socialize

criticisms, and moderate peer evaluation in order to reduce free-riding.

culture, the assignments organized in a team format are a common approach in fulfilling the program outcomes

regarding collaboration and communication. Nevertheless, the following conflicts are often reported by

educators: lack of equal participation, framing, and refusal to openly criticize each other (Hall and Buzwell,

2013; Benning, 2024). These frictions are usually compounded when groups are initiated with no clear roles,

objectives and procedures or when task conflict grows to relationship conflict.

In order to analyze these dynamics in a holistic manner, the paper combines the process perspective of group

development as proposed by Tuckman (1965) with the behavioral perspective of teamwork as put forward by

Salas et al. (2005). Tuckman imagines the way teams are formed (Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing),

Salas et al. define what teams are doing well (team leadership, mutual performance monitoring and backup

behavior, adaptability, team orientation). We use these models on the Malaysian undergraduates to see the

demonstrate how inadequate accountability systems undermine the overall output (Xu et al., 2024). On the

other hand, in a properly organized way, collaborative learning brings academic benefits, enhanced thinking,

and development of professional skills (Gresch and Martens, 2019; King and Henderson, 2018; Boud and

Falchikov, 2006; Otto et al., 2024). The presence of trust and psychological safety is critical as it allows voices

and feedback to be stronger and enhance team cohesion and learning (Poort et al., 2020; Cossio-Torres et al.,

2022).

The collectivist culture of Malaysian/Asian would offer dissent and critical feedback as the path to harmony

which may be stifled at an earlier stage of teamwork. This cultural dynamic will increase the difficulties in the

storming stage and hide the positive aspects of healthy conflict. It is against this backdrop that we combine

Tuckman and Salas models to (i) record students perceptions on teamwork elements and (ii) hypothesise the

emphasized the need to build advantages at the outset in terms of role clarity and common purpose (Awang,

2023; Kamarudin et al., 2023; Lim-Mei, 2024), and to manage the storming phase by control (Min, 2023;

Yean, 2024). Norming unifies standards and identity (Seck et al., 2013; Coers et al., 2010), facilitates good

the framework in other fields is confirmed by subsequent research (Svensson et al., 2019; Espevik et al., 2021).

Psychological safety is a social requirement that facilitates the prosperity of such behaviors (Cossio-Torres et

al., 2022).

A combination of the two schools of thought gives a temporal-behavioral explanation: Tuckman is when

difficulties arise (e.g., trust deficits in forming; conflict in storming), and Salas is how teams are effective

(leadership, monitoring, backup, adaptability, orientation). This merging is particularly applicable in

collectivistic settings, where harmony standards can suppress voice and criticism; formal leadership and

definite norms can habitualize criticism without jeopardising relationships.

Empirical literature records a series of disadvantages in group-based learning especially in inadequate planning

more comprehensive studies of collaboration as it is found that in situations where incentives and

interdependence are not aligned correctly, groups are more likely to be less motivated and coordinated (Xu et

al., 2024; Shelly et al., 2017). All these findings together indicate that structural ambiguity and social loafing

are still sources of significant obstacles inhibiting the pedagogical potential of teamwork in higher education.

On the other hand, there is a consistent body of research that shows that properly organized group work has a

significant contribution to the cognitive and affective learning outcomes. Provided with roles, mutual respect,

and reflective assessment, collaborative learning promotes improved academic performance and profound

engagement (Gresch and Martens, 2019; King and Henderson, 2018; Zubiri-Esnaola et al., 2020; Otto et al.,

2024). Professional and interpersonal skills such as communication, leadership, and problem-solving are also

transferable and developed in the team-based activities (Exley, 2010; Maiden and Perry, 2011; Pitse and Ngozi,

2018; Light, 2001; Elgort et al., 2008). Besides that, engagement in cooperative learning conditions was also

force behind the design of the current study.

The current analysis will combine the stages taken by Tuckman (Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing)

and the components proposed by Salas et al. (leadership, monitoring/backing, adaptability, orientation) to

identify how students perceive and how they relate to elements of teamwork. This integration makes the model

capture the temporal development of teamwork (how teams develop) as well as the behavioral processes that

maintain a team working effectively (what teams do to work). In this context, the progressive phases mark

group interaction course of development, whereas the behavioural elements give the indicative factors of the

quality of teamwork operations. We anticipate that leadership, monitoring/backup and adaptability co-exist

A cross-sectional quantitative survey study was carried out among 209 undergraduates (Years 1-3) pursuing

language related courses in a state university in Malaysia. Participation was voluntary and anonymous. Gender

and the year of study were coded as 1 -2 and 1 -3, respectively.

Four subscales correlated with Tuckman-Salas integration were measured using a 29- item Likert scale (1 =

strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree): team leadership (Forming, 7 items), mutual performance monitoring and

backup behavior (Storming, 6 items), adaptability ( Norming, 8 items), and team orientation (Performing, 8

items). Internal consistency was satisfactory to excellent (α = .720, .756, .716, .886; overall α = .904).

The instrument was also subjected to expert evaluation of the content to prove content validity and linguistic

adequacy. To answer RQ5 and test the relationships between the components of teamwork, data were

processed with the help of descriptive statistics and Pearson correlations. The inferential analyses were also

conducted to enhance the strength of findings. In particular, a multiple regression model was calculated to

describe Performing based on Forming, Storming and Norming, with the control of gender and the year of

study. This method enabled more insight into the proportionality of each phase to the results of teamwork. The

significance was fixed at α = .05 (two-tailed).

Table 7- Means for Team Orientation (Performing)

These findings are in line with the performing stage (Tuckman and Jensen, 1977), and with Nor (2023) and

Min (2023): the more effective teams are at passing the previous stage, the more effective they become at the

subsequent one. Collaboration also allows them to overlap with more general literature on deeper learning and

Pearson correlation analyses reveal that the four teamwork components have a significant positive correlation

(see Table 8): leadership–monitoring/ backup (r ≈ .58), monitoring/ backup–adaptability (r ≈ .44),

adaptability–orientation (r ≈ .67), and leadership–orientation (r ≈ .58), all p < .001.

Table 8 - Correlations among teamwork components.

Leadership

Adaptability

Note: Pearson’s r correlations, **p < .001 for all associations. Leadership = Forming; onitoring/Backup =

found the same dynamics in high-reliability teams.

The connections between leadership and monitoring/back up (r ≈.58) also emphasize the fact that the shared

monitoring relies on effective communication of the leader and the responsibility distribution, as well as

Manser (2009) and Lemieux-Charles and McGuire (2006) concluded that coordination regimes are necessary

in order to preserve situational awareness. At the same time, the fact that leadership is positively correlated

with orientation supports the notion that the positive leadership tone determines the performing and resonance

level of efficiency through trust and psychological safety as collaboration intermediates, as Cossio-Torres et al.

(2022) and Poort et al. (2020) have found out.

In general, these interrelationships are empirical evidence that team effectiveness is created in a constellation

of mutually supportive behaviors. The combined TuckmanSalas model therefore incorporates the behavioral as

well as the developmental aspects of a team and illustrates its relevance towards Malaysian undergraduates