*2.2. Materials*

During the first month (September 2019), students were able to plan their project identifying what components they would need, how they would be assembled, and for what purpose. On the one hand, CE students took the lead within their groups by analysing the most suitable sensors, and actuators. The selection and purchase of components was restricted to the stocks in a well-known website specialized in electronic components. On the other hand, AE students took the lead within their groups to decide on which components were required to assemble the irrigation system, the type of soil, and the type of plant. Before making the full purchase, the groups presented a preliminary draft specifying which components were to be used and how they were to be assembled. Professors from both disciplines (CE and AE) validated the proposals, and suggested changes to guarantee the operation of their future IoT projects.

All students had institutional tools to work collaboratively online (i.e., Microsoft Sharepoint, Microsoft Teams, Skype, and email accounts). All students were assisted on-demand by teachers.

#### *2.3. Design of the Case Study*

This collaboration between faculties from di fferent disciplines was developed with the aim to promote mixed areas of knowledge (i.e., mechatronics) within the university. This study was carried out and presented to students as an initiative in which they should design IoT systems that are compliant with the SDGs [6].

The composition of the groups varied on the expertise of the students, and the expertise of the teachers. Hence, there were 3 di fferent types of groups:


Regarding the group formation, teachers presented the 3 types of groups that students might join to work along the semester. Students were assigned to groups as soon as they decided the option that was more convenient for them. Finally, there were 3 groups for each group type. Each group voluntarily chose a leader who was in charge of organizing the communication, and taking care of the materials. All groups collaborated during the semester using the channels they found handier.

CE and AE students were allocated on two di fferent campuses in the city (i.e., Campus Sur, and Ciudad Universitaria). Hence, group leaders organized sporadic and spontaneous meetings to make progress within their projects. Additionally, students were encouraged to use the channels provided by the university to arrange synchronous and/or asynchronous online meetings.

#### *2.4. Meassure Instruments*

This study followed the constructs suggested by Gil et al. [36] to measure team work. Reasonably, seven-point Likert scales were used to measure the 8 constructs: (1) Cooperativeness was measured using items 4 from [37]; (2) Collaborative behaviour was measured using 5 items from [38]; (3) Task complexity and (4) Workload were measured using 3 and 4 items respectively from [39]; (5) Team cohesiveness was measured using 6 items from [37,40,41]; (6) Perceived learning was measured using items from [42]; (7) Expected quality was measured using 3 items from [43]; (8) Satisfaction with teamwork was assessed following [41,44]. The forms were completed using an online questionnaire at the end of the course.

Teachers evaluated the work of CE students in a 0 to 10 scale at the end of the course. Students had to prepare a practical demo of the planter, write a technical document describing hardware and software designs, specify how they had covered the SDGs in their implementation, sugges<sup>t</sup> further initiatives to foster environmental awareness in the campus, and openly share the code in a repository. In contrast, AE students were evaluated considering elements of assessment that happened before the start of the study. Hence, AE students' grades were excluded from the evaluation to avoid bias.
