Academic
Exchange Quarterly
Fall 2004: Volume 8, Issue 3
Beginning
a Team Journey of Discovery
Patricia Ann Marcellino,
Patricia Ann
Marcellino is an assistant professor of higher education. She was awarded the Doctor of Educational
Administration by
Abstract
The purpose of this
study was to conduct an exploratory action research investigation of team units
in an educational leadership course. The
instructor and action researcher presents her qualitative journey with seventeen
graduate students who were registered in an educational leadership program. Students were teachers and aspiring
principals. Results illustrated that students
gained self-awareness and learned about the strengths and weaknesses of working
in teams. Team members provided multiple
perspectives about their teams, which enabled the instructor to increase her
understanding regarding team units. The
instructor was able to redesign her team instructional model or “action plan”
concerning utilizing teams in the classroom.
Background
Today,
teams are popular in classrooms and at worksites. Adults are asked to work in teams to change
and adapt to new developments and technological advances. Theorists posit that individuals will change more
quickly working in teams (rather than working alone) because multiple team
members can influence an individual to change and adapt (Bolman & Deal,
l997; Senge, l990; Senge, Kliner, Roberts, Ross, Roth, & Smith, l999; Senge, Cambron-McCabe, Lucas,
Smith, Dutton, & Kleiner, 2000). Furthermore, when teams are utilized in the
classroom, the assumption is that what is learned will transfer to the
workplace. The cooperative group model
works well in schools (Johnson & Johnson, l999; Slavin,
l999), but as adults transfer to the worksite, they formulate assumptions that
affect their behavior and how they interact in teams. Because of this, adults may experience tension
when they participate on a team (Katzenbach &
Smith, l993; Lipnack & Stamps, l997; Pacanowsky, l995; Thompson, 2000). How each individual reconciles this tension seems
to determine whether the adult learns from the team experience.
Purpose
The
purpose of the study was to conduct an exploratory action research investigation
of four teams over a sixteen week period in an educational leadership course. Three teams had four members, while one team
had five members. The instructor was not
a member of the teams; but she was the primary action researcher and the
facilitator to the teams. Students were also
action researchers, as they investigated, discussed, reflected and added to
their understanding about teams and the interaction of team members.
Participants
According to Thompson (2000), teams enhance
creativity and problem solving because of the diversity of team members. The participants were seventeen teachers and
aspiring principals in an educational leadership program. Multiple perspectives were presented as
diverse team members interacted. Fifteen
of the participants were female and two were male. Nine of the participants were coded as culturally
and/or racially diverse. These diverse
individuals were balanced across the teams.
Both males were coded as culturally and/or racially diverse. Two of the teams were heterogeneous as one male
was placed on Team 1 and the other was placed on Team 4. Team 1 had three diverse members, while Teams
2, 3 and 4 had two diverse members each.
Acquiring Partners
According to Bogdan & Biklen (l998), in
action research, “teachers and their students define the real world together”
(233). Therefore, the qualitative
journey is not solitary. By engaging in
action research, the instructor applied a “theory into action” model and tried
to close the gap between theory and practice (Senge,
l990). Moreover, her graduate leadership
students simultaneously implemented the action research model as they
interacted in their teams and set about investigating both their chosen team
topics and their teams. The instructor
was a participant observer of the teams as they evolved; she was not a member
of the teams. But by engaging in action
research, instructor and students became partners in the research process.
Theoretical Framework
Mills’s
(2003) action research model served as the framework for this study. According to Mills, the goal of action
research is to improve teaching and learning.
Action research “is about incorporating into the daily teaching routine
a reflective stance – the willingness
to critically examine one’s teaching in order to improve and enhance it” (10). Continual reflection is an integral part of
the action research process, as participants evaluate how they may have
supported the team constructively or unconstructively. Mills’s broad research
guidelines are: (1) identify an area of focus; (2) collect data; (3) analyze
and interpret the data, and (4) develop an action plan. This action plan may be the redesigning of an
instructor’s syllabus. In this study,
the area of focus was the team unit.
Within the action research model, the instructor–as-an-action-researcher
monitored and evaluated the classroom situation and the interaction of
participants by engaging in a field of action that involved discussing,
rethinking, re-planning, reflecting, understanding and learning. According to Osterman
& Kottkamp (l993), the instructor’s role changes
in a reflective model. The instructor is
no longer there to lecture and deliver information, but instead the instructor
becomes a facilitator and coach who is there to guide individual learners and initiate
personal inquiry and growth. She does
this, by providing opportunities for students to discuss, re-think, re-plan,
reflect, generate and learn from one another.
A
Pilot Study
Team
disunity developed in a pilot study on teams conducted by the instructor in another
educational leadership course, so she decided to actively monitor the teams in
this study and have each participant update her on a weekly basis. Updates were provided through e-mail and in
person. In this way, the instructor was
able to track and code team tensions as they developed. She began to widen her support of the teams
by coaching her students through their team tensions. In the previous study, the instructor
remained on the periphery and did not coach her students when tensions
developed. When the pilot study ended, several
students reported that the team experience was disappointing. One student commented, “We didn’t become a
team. We were like ships passing in the
night. We were six separate individuals
doing our own thing.”
Design and Methods
Most
team studies are quantitatively designed and by intention, variables are
limited (Kline, l999). As a result,
quantitative studies don’t seem to provide an in-depth view of what happens to
the team from the perspective of all
team members. The researcher, therefore,
adopted a qualitative design because it seemed well-suited in exploring multiple
perspectives. Applying a metaphor to the
design of the study, rather than investigate snapshots of the before or after team
experience, the researcher constructed an “evolving collage” so teams could be
explored from multiple perspectives as the team process evolved.
In
action research, a triangulation of methods is recommended to ensure the study
is trustworthy and stands up to the rigors of scholarship (Mills, 2003). Methods included field notes, individual/team
updates, evaluative surveys (including field-tested pre and post inventories
and a team member feedback questionnaire) and reflective team assignments such
as, developing and signing team contracts, writing one summative team process
paper and compiling team metaphors. These
methods became the data sources and provided the chronology for analysis. Because monitoring teams can be unwieldy,
Miles & Huberman’s (l994) structured guidelines
were followed in the analysis of themes, patterns, contrasts and surprises. Four team stories were compiled from multiple
perspectives. A categorization process
was established. Categories were created
based on the number of participants mentioning a pattern as well as any
divergence from established themes. Overall, the dependability of the data is
supported by the credibility of the “words” of the participants (Miles & Huberman, l994).
According to Mills (2003), personal inventories
and questionnaires may be included in action research. Students were given a pre-tested inventory regarding
their preference for working in teams.
This inventory had a Crombach reliability
rating of .87. It included 28 Likert scale questions and several open ended
questions. Students who were coded
“individualistic, mixed or team oriented” were also balanced across the four
teams. Initially, there were eight “team
oriented” students; four students were characterized as “mixed” and five were
coded as “individualistic.”
The qualitative journey is exploratory (Denzin & Lincoln, l994). It is a journey of surprises, twists and
turns. After teams were formed, several students
seemed to change their original
perceptions about working on teams.
This change could be traced to the reality of the team formations and disappointment
regarding individual team members placed on the teams. Students were re-coded and tracked regarding
these changes. Their “words” verified
this initial change. There were four
students now coded “team oriented,” eight were “mixed” and five were
“individualistic.”
Students were coded as Individualistic if they declared:
“I would have been happy not
interacting with anyone.” “I cringed at the prospect of working on a
team.” Students were coded as Mixed if they commented: “I consider myself team oriented, but
I pulled back initially and changed my
feelings about this team. People on this
group seemed overpowering and I said to myself, oh, oh, what am I getting
myself into on this team.” “I would have
preferred choosing my own teammates rather than working on this diverse team.” Students were coded as Team oriented if they acknowledged:
“I was excited about working with this group.” “I believe as team
members we have the potential to become a team.”
Discussion
Many
questions were asked throughout this study.
But overall, the instructor was interested in exploring how students interacted
and changed in teams. From multiple perspectives,
students analyzed their teams. The team
process was circular, not linear. There
was movement, change and shifting toward and away from teams and team members throughout
the team experience.
Human beings in a university classroom do not
exist in a vacuum. Human beings are
“very complicated organisms, and compared to chemicals – and mice, for that
matter – their behavior is disorderly and fairly unpredictable” (Mills, 2003,
p.3). There are multiple factors that
affect individuals and the learning that evolves in a classroom. When there was tension, the instructor
discussed it with individual students and sought to have them analyze their
team tensions by turning reflective analysis inward. She advised students to first evaluate their own
perceptions and assumptions about team units and team members by asking
questions, like, “What could you have
done differently?” and “What can you do
to rectify this situation.” Team
tensions were not traced to differences in the culture, race or gender of team
members, but were traced to individual differences in perceptions and
assumptions about expectations concerning the team’s work and productivity.
Results
An adult
does not change unless the individual sees value in changing. As peers, students evaluated their team
products, their teams and one another (Topping, l998). By the end of the study, 12 students were
coded as “team oriented, one student was coded as “mixed” and four students
were coded as “individualistic.” But
this coding became secondary. What was significant
was the value students attached to the team experience in regard to their personal
growth and development. Participants
widened their knowledge base about the weaknesses and strengths of team units;
and through their interactions in teams, they developed self-understanding,
tolerance and appreciation of others. Students
stated:
On Team 1:
The best lesson I learned (besides the fact that it’s good to work
outside your comfort zone) is that every person has their own talents and
strengths and it’s worth it to take the time to find out what they are.
On Team 2:
I have realized that I am weak when something new is presented and need
to be more open minded.
On Team 3:
I learned to trust the expertise of other members of the team.
On Team 4:
I learned about myself and not to be so intense; I learned to share with
my team members.
Qualitative
researchers never know where the research will take them. The research process is not neat; at times,
it meanders. It may start in one
direction and end in another. Initially,
the instructor set off to study her students in their teams, but realized she
needed to focus on herself and how she interacted with her students. In the process of qualitative research, the
researcher collects and weaves through the data and may discover herself
(Emerson, Fritz, & Shaw, l995). While
implementing the action model, the instructor engaged in the action cycle of
discussing, rethinking, re-planning, reflecting, understanding and learning
(Mills, 2003). She turned the reflecting
mirror outward and tried to develop
an understanding of her students in their teams. More importantly, the instructor turned the
reflecting mirror inward and realized
that she also changed. Unwittingly, she
became a participant in the study [the 18th]. She extended herself, gave more time to her
students and tried to support them by guiding them through their team
tensions. In so doing, she changed her
teaching practice and improved it. Through
e-mail, she became available 24/7 in order to facilitate the teams. One student said, “You were always available to
discuss what was happening on my team.” She changed her syllabus to include the
periodic revisiting of team contracts and holding open class forums so that all
team members could discuss and compare their teams openly and learn from one
another’s experiences.
Adults
initially enrolled in this course to improve their leadership skills. By engaging in an action research study about
teams, students evaluated themselves as team members and became aware of their
interactions in diverse teams. By
discussing team tensions with the instructor and one another, students became
aware of their own individual weaknesses and strengths. These discussions initiated self-discovery
and change. On three teams, students
opened themselves up to feedback from others.
They began to appreciate one another’s diverse skills and talents and began
to trust in the feedback offered in order to implement personal change. On one team, not all students accepted the
feedback offered and team members had a difficult time implementing suggested
changes.
Concluding metaphors were compiled and shared
with class members so students could compare different team experiences. Developing metaphors widens perspectives and broadens
creativity (Couger, l995; Kemp, 1999; Koro-Ljungberg, 2001).
Team members stated:
Team 1:
Our team process was like baking an apple pie. Many ingredients are used and although they
are used in varying amounts, no one ingredient is more important than the rest.
Team 2:
If I had to use something to symbolize the meaning of this process, I
would use a deck of cards. You never
know what you are going to get, but as you continue to go through the deck, you
eventually get four of a kind - and that is what happened to us, we became four
of a kind.
Team 3:
We were like a train and no matter what happened you couldn’t stop the
train.
Team 4:
Our team was as strong as a paper chain . . .toward the end, we were all
starting to break apart.
The instructor took a research journey with
her students and together they learned about their own learning. Hopefully, what was learned in the classroom
about teams will transfer to the worksite.
Photographs were also taken of and by the students to chronicle their
experiences and to serve as visualized back-up data (Bogdan
& Biklen, l998).
These photographs were shared and may serve as reminders for continued
reflection and learning.
Research
Significance
Four
teams were explored. This journey into
team research may serve as the impetus for other action research studies by
team instructors. By engaging in action
research, team members turned the reflective mirror outward and assessed their team products. Teams investigated educational problems and
presented recommendations in solving these problems. They also turned the reflective mirror inward and constructed and deconstructed
their own team interactions. Periodic
assessment, comparison, discussion and feedback helped initiate personal change
and self-discovery.
Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (l998).
Qualitative research in education.
Bolman,
L.G., & Deal, T.E. (l997). Reframing
organizations.
Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Couger, J. D. (l995).
Creative problem solving and opportunity finding.
Boyd & Fraser Publishing Company.
Denzin,
N.K., &
Emerson,
R.M.,
fieldnotes.
Johnson,
D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (l999). Making
cooperative learning work.
Theory
Into Practice, 38 (2), 67-74.
Katzenbach,
J. R., & Smith, D.K. (l993). The
wisdom of teams.
Harper Business.
Kemp,
E. (l999). Metaphor as a tool for
evaluation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education,
24 (1), 81-90.
Koro-Ljungberg, M. (2001). Metaphors as a way to explore qualitative
data. Qualitative
studies
in education,14 (3), 367-379.
Kline,
T. (l999). Remaking teams: The revolutionary research-based guide
that
puts theory into practice.
Lipnack,
J., & Stamps, J. (l997). Virtual
teams.
Sons,
Inc.
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A. M. (l994).
Qualitative data analysis.
Thousand
Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Mills,
G.E. (2003). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. Upper
Osterman,
K.F., & Kottkamp, R.B. (1993). Reflective practice for educators:
Improving schooling through professional
development.
CA:
Corwin Press, Inc.
Pacanowsky,
M. (l995). Team tools for wicked
problems. Organizational
Dynamics,
23 (3), 36-49.
Senge,
P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton,
J., & Kleiner, A. (2000).
Schools
that learn.
Senge, P.,
Kliner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G., &
Smith, B. (l999). The dance of
change. Garden City,
NY: Doubleday.
organization.
Slavin,
R. (l999). Comprehensive approaches to
cooperative learning. Theory
Into
Practice, 38 (2), 74-80.
Thompson, L. (2000).
Making the team: A guide for
managers. Upper Saddle
River, NJ:
Prentice Hall, Inc.
Topping, K. (l998). Peer assessment between students in colleges
and
universities. Review of Educational Research, 68
(3), 249-276.