Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 420 710 TM 028 432
AUTHOR Trimble, Susan B.; Peterson, Gary W.TITLE A Multitrait-Multimethod Framework To Assess Team Leadership
and Team Functioning.PUB DATE 1998-04-00NOTE 15p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association (San Diego, CA, April13-17, 1998).
PUB TYPE Reports Research (143) Speeches/Meeting Papers (150)EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Case Studies; *Educational Change; Elementary Secondary
Education; *Evaluation Methods; Focus Groups;Interdisciplinary Approach; Interviews; *Leadership;*Multitrait Multimethod Techniques; *Teacher Collaboration;*Teamwork
ABSTRACTThe growth of educational teams in collaborative reform
initiatives spurs a need for team assessments to assist in promotingfunctional team environments, productive team work, and member satisfaction.This study applied a multitrait-multimethod framework (D. Campbell and D.Fiske, 1959) to assess team functioning and team leadership. Four casestudies of four middle level interdisciplinary teacher teams illuminate howthe multitrait-multimethod framework can be used to assess and then prescribeinterventions to enhance team functioning. This paper presents two of fourcases. A traits-by-methods (4 x 4) matrix provided a conceptual framework fora comprehensive assessment of each case. Traits were task, relationships,leadership, and motivation/energy. Methods were story-writing,questionnaires, direct observation of team meetings, and leader focus groupsusing metaphors. The results substantiate that the multitrait-multimethodframework provides convergent, concrete, and useful findings to generaterecommendations for team maintenance and improvement. (Contains four tablesand seven references.) (Author/SLD)
********************************************************************************* Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *
* from the original document. *
********************************************************************************
98achan I
1998 AERA Annual Conference, San DiegoSession 1.26 Monday April 13, 1998
A Multitrait-Multimethod FrameworkTo Assess Team Leadership and Team Functioning
Susan B. Trimble Gary W. PetersonGeorgia Southern University Florida State University
Abstract
1
The growth of educational teams in collaborative reform initiatives spurs a need for teamassessments to assist in promoting functional team environments, productive team work, andmember satisfaction.. This study applied a multitrait,-multimethod framework (Campbell &Fiske, 1959) to assess team functioning and team leadership. Four cases studies of four middlelevel interdisciplinary teacher teams illuminated how the multitrait-multimethod framework canbe used to assess and then prescribe interventions to enhance team functioning. For purposes ofthis paper and presentation, two of the four cases are presented. A traits by methods (4 x 4)matrix provided a conceptual framework for a comprehensive assessment of each case. Traitswere task, relationships, leadership, and motivation/energy. Methods were story-writing,questionnaires, direct observation of team meetings, and leader focus groups using metaphors.The results substantiated that the multitrait-muhimethod framework provided convergent,concrete, and useful findings to generate recommendations for team maintenance and/orimprovement.
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL
HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
(1.-
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement
ED ATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)
This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.
Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.
Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy.
2
Introduction
The expansion of group-orientated practices in organizational decision-making is evidentin industry and education. In delivering instruction, the focus of educational practices is shiftingfrom teachers working in isolation to teachers planning instruction together as interdisciplinaryteam members making connections among their subject areas. Specifically at the middle level,where the vehicle for teacher collaboration is interdisciplinary teams of teachers and students, thenumber of schools using interdisciplinary has increased from 33% in 1989 (Alexander &McEwin, 1989) to 42% in 1990 (Epstein & Mac Iver, 1990) to 57% in 1993 (Valentine, Clark,Irvin, Keefe, & Melton, 1993).
The increase in the number of educational teams, however, is not matched by adequateteacher training in collaborative group processes to promote team potential, team maintenance,and outputs (Mac Iver & Epstein, 1990; Trimble & Irvin, 1996). Nor do the available teamassessment instrument address the complexity of factors impacting team functioning. Without theuse of a broad range of measures to assess the complexity of team work on which to developrecommendations for staff development, the potential of teams in many cases remains untapped.Assessing how a team functions, therefore, provides an initial step to evaluate and improve teamperformance.
The Proposed Multitrait-Multimethod Framework
The present study addresses the need for a comprehensive assessment to cut throughnatural individual and team defenses and to provide information in concrete and comprehensiveterms useful to team members. The proposed method of team assessment is a multitrait-multimethod framework, similar to that proposed by Campbell and Fiske (1959) to evaluate theconstruct validity of psychometric measures. A description of the proposed framework ofassessment with 4 levels of traits and 4 levels of methods follows:The Four Traits. The four traits or dimensions of team functioning were defined as:
(a) Task: the focused activities of the group to produce an outcome;(b) Relationships: membership concerns, roles, status, and affiliations;(c) Leadership: a set of behaviors that help a group to move towards a particular
objective;(d) Motivation/energy: the activity level used for group productivity or group
maintenanceThe Four Methods. Four assessment methods included the following:
(a) Story-writing for projections of group-related mental schema,(b) Questionnaires to target comprehensive team functioning,(c) Team meeting observations to map communication patterns, and(d) Focus groups to collect metaphors to reveal leader symbolic representation.
Research Objectives
The purpose of the study was to demonstrate the use of the multitrait-multimethodframework to assess team functioning and to prescribe interventions to enhance team functioning.This study explored four cases studies, two of which are presented in this paper. The studysought to demonstrate the application of the proposed method to examine team process only. Atthis time, the relationship between process and product was not investigated. It was proposed
3
that the analysis of the results could be used to prescribe ways to improve team performance andto act as a stimulus for further research.
ParticipantsThe sample consisted of 4 interdisciplinary teacher teams (4 teachers each) in a
southeastern United States middle school (Grades 6-8). Both the teams and the school were in thefirst year of operation, although some of the teachers had worked together in a former school andhad chosen to transfer to the new school. The middle school was structured by 18interdisciplinary teams of teachers who taught and guided the same group of students ingrades 6 - 8. The present case studies were two 7th grade teams and two 8th grade teams. Teamleaders consisted of 3 white females and 1 black female. Team teachers consisted of 11 femalewhite teachers and 1 white male teacher, with years of teaching experience ranging from 3 monthsto 25 years.
Data CollectionWith the support and interest of the principal, the proposed method of team assessment
was administered to all teams in the spring of 1997. The teachers, assembled by grade levelsduring their planning time, individually wrote stories to the same three pictures (method 1) andindividually completed the questionnaire on aspects of their teams functioning (method 2). Thecollected stories and questionnaires were grouped by teams and checked for full participation byall team members. four-member teams with completed and full participation of members werechosen for team meeting observations (method 3). In the following weeks, team meetings of fourteams were observed and scripted, with the scripted notes set aside by the researchers for analysisafter the meetings of the team leader focus groups (method 4). Team leaders of all the teams inthe school were then assembled by grade level for a grade level team leader focus group. Theteam leaders completed the team leader response sheet and then spoke about their feelings andthoughts about being a team leader. To maintain the highest possible degree of unbiased datacollection, no analysis of the content occurred following each phase of data collection.
Coding of DataThe authors coded the stories written to pictures (method 1), scored the questionnaires for
variance in the answers and convergent of high and low scores (method 2), coded the teammeetings for communication patterns (method 3), and recorded the team leader focus group foroverall themes of metaphors chosen by team leaders to depict their team and their leadership.
Data AnalysisThe data were recorded on a 4 x 4 matrix of trait by method for each team. Inquiry
questions for each method by trait (see Table 2) pinpointed aspects of team functioning andleadership that were unique to each method and provided direction for recording data in thematrix. Data were related using operationalized constructs of tasks, member concerns,leadership, and energy/motivation to find points of agreements through repeated findings andevidence of novel traits or behaviors attributable to the method or the team. Issues of validitywere addressed in a manner similar to the form of the multitrait, multimethod work of Campbell &Fiske (1959) where convergent and discriminant validity were established through a correlationmatrix.
4
Validation in the FieldTo validate the findings for each team, at the end of the school year, the principal and two
assistant principals who had supervised the four teams for the previous nine months at the schoolfirst recorded in short phrases their impressions of each of the four teams. The researcherscompared these comments of the three principals to their findings for each team and used theprincipals' notations to stimulate discussion with the principals about the findings by themultitrait-multimethod framework. The verifications of the principal.and two assistants confirmedreliability of the summative assessment for each team.
Findings
The four methods provided the following assessment across four dimensions of teambehaviors: task, member concerns, leadership, and energy/motivation. For purposes of this paper,findings and recommendations of two out of the four cases are provided here to illustrate a highand low performing group.
Case #1: The Bees. (see Table 3). This team demonstrated a balance of task andrelationship, matched by an appropriate delegating type leadership. Discussions ended in closure,with tasks completed and roles defined. The metaphor choice of the team leader was the team as"bees." The practical approach to work emerged with the metaphor choice of the team vehicle as"the station wagon." The choice of the fairy tale line "They lived happily ever after" mirrored theabsence of subgroups among the five team members.
Case #2: A Herd of Elephants. (see Table 4). This team demonstrated high relationshipbehaviors and care for students, with little closure and few decisions, and a coaching type ofleadership. The metaphor choice of the team leader was the team as "a herd of elephants." Thenurturing and helping approach to the work of the team emerged with the metaphor choice of theteam vehicle and "a big van." The choice of the fairy tale line "a princess cutting through a thicket"mirrored the difficulties faced by the team that year.
Recommendations
Case #1: With the high level of team functioning that enables member satisfaction andteam unity, this team can establish team goals to provide direction for team efforts. Leadershipstyle is appropriate for the level of team maturity, although a rotation of the formal leadership rolewould enable other team members to handle the coordination of the team's business.
Case #2: With this team at the initial stage of team development and a highly developedsense of caring and nurturing for students, this team would benefit from a more directive type ofleadership to clarify instructional tasks, establish roles, and balance the task and relationshipaspects of team functioning. A focus on task through establishing team goals would aid the teamto reach increased levels of instructional decision-making.
Implications of the Findings/Usefulness of the Method
For practitioners at the team level: The assessment framework generated data from avariety of perspectives and on two levels of findings: within teams and between teams. Viewed asnon-threatening, the techniques can generate involvement by the participants and stakeholders,being well received by participants, creating stimuli for team learning and team self-analysis. The
5
5
team members can use the findings for self-understanding, assessing team needs, forming a senseof direction, and developing team goals for improving team performance.
For researchers in the area of team research: This method provides greater understandingof the input variables, of team member and team leader mental schema and the process variables ofteam communication patterns, member roles, and scope and extent of team functioning.Researchers interested in creating and testing theory will find the method useful in seeking toestablish relationships amidst the between-team similarities and seeing the discrepancies .
For researchers in the area of methodology: This multimethods framework fits the call forvarious data collection points to address the complexity of teamwork. The central point ofconcern is not the individual methods of data collection but the analysis of copious amount ofdata. Researchers using this method become, using Fieldings & Fieldings (1986) term,methodologically eclectic within the "comparative frame of reference."
Conclusion
The study reveals the following about teams: task and/or affiliation focus; decision-makingformat; leader-group and inter-group relationships; member schema related to cognition of roles,leadership, group behaviors, and energy. The study reveals the following about the four methods:they are useful for research and practice because they give a comprehensive overview of teamfunctioning and leadership contributions that is not obtainable by the use of one or two methods.When combined with team member involvement with the data analysis and conclusions, thefindings can be used by team members to form team and personal goals. Future work to expandunderstanding of team work may include additional factors as outcomes, linkages with theenvironment, and student and administration perceptions.
References
Alexander, W. M., & McEwin, C. K. (1989). Schools in the middle: Status and progress.Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validity by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81-105.
Epstein, J. L., & Mac Iver, D. J. (1990). Education in the middle grades: Overview of nationalpractices and trends. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.
Fielding, N. G., & Fielding, J. L. (1986). Linking data. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Mac Iver, D. J., & Epstein, J. (1990). Responsive education in the middle grades: Teacher teams,
advisory groups, remedial instruction, school transition programs, and report card entries. (Report No.46). Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools. (ERIC Reproduction ServiceNo. ED 330 083).
Trimble, S. , and Irvin, J. L. (1996). Emerging from the mists: The field of teaming. Middle SchoolJournal, 27(5), 53-56.
Valentine, J. W., Clark, D., Irvin, I., Keefe, J., & Melton, G. (1993). Leadership in middle leveleducation: Volume I, A national survey of middle level leaders and schools. Reston, VA: NationalAssociation of Secondary School Principals.
6
Table 1: Multitrait-multimethod Team Assessment showing type of method, coding, andinformation for each method.
e bd:o Data 'Collection :-, eo t:o Information
Story-writing Words and reoccurringthemes
Implicit cognition, incidentsof affiliation; identification oftask, goal, team leaders androles; conflict and itsresolution, and taskorientation
Questionnaires Similarities & differences initem responses; variances inresponses
Perceptions of frequency ofaspects of team functioning;cohesion, tasks
Direct observation ofcommunication patterns
Communication patterns,encoded
Roles & member status;group interactions; decision-making
Focus groups Leader metaphors,reoccurring themes
Leader symbolicrepresentations of teammovement & roles
7
p\m
atri
Que
s
Tab
le 2
4 x
4 M
atri
x (T
raits
by
Met
hods
) of
Inq
uiry
Que
stio
ns
Met
hods
,f
''.,
So
-wilt
in..,
,.,,;;
:--,
.',-
,:.:'-
1,
"e ti
Oln
alre
-,-.
.,..,,
.E%
t la
'::':.
,!,i'
T'"
'.,;
,,.1
i'ec
seat
oV
P'
.'-`
'
eade
r,fo
Cus
,ro
tiii
Sum
mar
y
-,,,-
-,
.T
ask
Beh
avio
rson
task
grou
p; w
ork
polic
ies
proc
edur
es :
outc
omes
focu
sed
to p
rodu
ce a
nou
tcom
e
Wha
t wer
e ch
arac
ters
doi
ngin
the
stor
y? W
hat g
oals
, if
any
wer
e id
entif
ied?
Was
ata
sk id
entif
ied?
Was
ther
e an
outc
ome:
If
so, h
ow d
id it
happ
en?
Impa
ct o
n cl
assr
oom
,fr
eqne
ncy
of d
ecis
ions
impl
emen
ted;
bri
ngin
gcl
osur
e; #
of
them
atic
uni
ts;
pare
nt c
onfe
renc
es;
disc
ussi
ng te
am g
oals
Who
foc
used
on
task
?H
ow m
any
deci
sion
s w
ere
mad
e? W
hat t
ype
of ta
skw
as d
iscu
ssed
? W
here
was
the
emph
asis
, pro
cess
or o
utco
me?
Bes
t of
team
ing
wor
st o
f te
amin
gta
sk a
s le
ader
*The
basi
s of
Rec
omm
enda
tions
Rel
atio
nshi
p B
ehav
iors
role
s, c
omm
unic
atio
ngr
oup
proc
ess
conc
erns
role
saf
filia
tions
subg
roup
s
Wer
e th
e pe
ople
wor
king
toge
ther
on
a ta
sk?
Wha
tty
pes
of r
elat
ions
hips
appe
ared
? W
ere
role
sid
entif
ied?
Wha
t was
the
reas
on f
or b
eing
toge
ther
?
Wha
t sub
grou
ps e
mer
ges?
Val
uing
dif
fere
nces
? Sp
eak.
open
ly?
Tru
st e
ach
othe
r;en
joy
each
oth
er; i
nag
reem
ent o
n --
--; s
hare
dbe
liefs
?
Who
talk
ed &
how
oft
en?
Typ
es o
f co
mm
ents
; who
volu
ntee
red?
Who
sugg
este
d? W
ho to
ldst
orie
s? W
ho w
as p
assi
veor
dom
inan
t? A
mou
nt o
fva
riet
y?
Tea
m le
ader
'sm
etap
hor
for
team
.
Lea
ders
hip/
follo
vver
shi
Beh
avio
rsst
yle
beha
vior
sfo
cus
emph
asis
Was
a le
ader
iden
tifie
d? H
owdi
d th
e le
ader
beh
ave?
Wha
tdi
d th
e le
ader
do?
How
did
grou
p m
embe
rs r
eact
to th
ele
ader
? H
ow w
as th
e le
ader
desc
ribe
d?
Wha
t typ
es o
f co
mm
ents
did
the
lead
er m
ake?
Who
was
in c
harg
e? W
hoin
flue
nced
? W
ho h
andl
edde
tails
?
Self
-rep
ort o
fle
ader
's r
ole;
har
dest
part
; lea
der's
rol
e
Ene
rgy/
Mot
ivat
ion/
Eff
ort.
Gro
up e
nerg
yde
vote
d to
task
---w
ork
grou
ps; d
evot
ed to
inte
rnal
pro
cess
=pr
oces
sgr
oups
; to
reso
lve
conf
lict o
f gr
oup
vs.
exte
rnal
for
ces
=co
mba
tive
(Ber
ne, 4
2)
Was
ther
e dy
nam
ic o
r pa
ssiv
eac
tivity
? W
ere
emot
ions
posi
tive
or n
egat
ive?
Was
ther
e a
sens
e of
impo
rtan
ce?
of c
onfl
ict a
nd p
ossi
ble
reso
lutio
n? o
f an
out
com
e,po
sitiv
e or
neg
ativ
e?
Focu
sed
atte
ntio
n? I
f so
,on
wha
t? A
mou
nt a
ndin
tens
ity o
f ef
fort
.C
ontr
olle
d?
Wha
t did
the
met
apho
rs s
ay a
bout
spen
d/ m
ovem
ent o
fth
e te
am?
Fair
y ta
le li
ne?
S
9
wpV
tOrn
au I
sil
Tab
le 3
Mat
rix
of T
raits
by
Met
hods
: Fin
ding
s by
Ind
ivid
ual C
ase
#1
Cas
el-
0000
00
:;,,:,
..i"A
'.$:P
i.';:!
:;Y:'.
:::',.
; ';'.
;.i,!
'4,4
*St
ory-
wri
ting
.fl00
0i0
i',!;
...;;O
:',I,
Vi,'
-',K
iiNg0
'-',''
1:
nest
iont
air
'\,:4
4,,,.
...v:
:.,,.,
,,t,;(
,;,_
'}I.
A91
11'5
:'-i,f
.'"44
iffi
t^A
NcW
4Pv.
irtc
(00j
er4t
0,..,
::,,,.
,..:.,
,.i"!
,,;0,
;,,,,,
.,.eg
nktr
ee in
sFo
cus
ottp
Set
aPlit
irs-
,:::::
;
:.:;.;
,:.
Sum
mar
y
Tas
k'.
O
*tas
k co
nsid
ered
impo
rtan
t*h
igh
conc
ern
and
prid
e*o
utco
mes
wer
e st
ated
*agr
eem
ent o
n "w
e m
ake
---.
deci
sion
s w
ith e
very
one'
sin
put
*tca
m r
esul
ted
in c
lass
room
chan
ges
in 5
are
as.
*4 d
ecis
ions
mad
e'.f
::Se
lf-R
epor
t of
lead
er's
task
:le
ader
as
a gu
ide
to d
evel
op a
com
mon
pur
pose
, dev
elop
pers
onal
fri
ends
hip
(ck)
, and
mak
e su
re th
ings
get
don
e:ke
epin
g re
cord
s, ta
ke m
inut
es
*tas
k fo
cuse
d*d
ecis
ions
mad
e*t
hing
s ge
t don
e*t
eam
mak
es a
n im
pact
on
clas
sroo
m
::
:
Rel
atio
nshi
p
*gro
up w
as im
port
ant
*alm
ost n
o co
nflic
t*I
ndiv
idua
ls h
ave
role
s*p
eopl
e w
ere
iden
tifie
das
a te
am
*all
trus
t eac
h ot
her
*all
enjo
y be
ing
on te
am*h
igh
agre
emen
t on
freq
uenc
yof
team
beh
avio
rs*n
o su
bgro
ups
*suc
cess
due
to g
ettin
g al
ong
& a
ll co
ntri
bute
to d
ecis
ions
*fre
quen
cy o
f ta
lkin
gev
enin
g di
stri
bute
dam
ongs
t mem
bers
*rol
es a
ppea
red
as th
eta
sk-f
ocus
er (
lead
er),
the
ques
tione
r, th
e su
gges
ter,
the
real
ist
Tea
m M
etap
hor:
to w
ork
ason
eB
est p
art o
f te
amin
g: to
supp
ort e
ach
othe
r, e
qual
part
ners
, sha
ring
and
wor
king
toge
ther
.
*Sha
rcd
perc
eptio
ns*c
ohes
ion,
no
subg
roup
*ind
ivid
ual r
oles
&ex
pres
sion
*eac
h m
embe
r co
ntri
bute
s
:.-
;1.,:
::::
:
Lea
ders
hip
'.' .
lead
ers
wer
eid
entif
ied
Wor
st p
art o
f le
ader
s jo
b:lo
sing
not
es, r
ecor
d ke
epin
gH
arde
st p
art o
f le
ader
's jo
b:"e
mph
asiz
ing
thin
gs th
ead
min
istr
atio
n w
ants
us
to d
oth
at m
y te
am d
oesn
't ag
ree
with
"
*rec
ogni
tion
of le
ader
*lea
der
as m
anag
er a
ndta
sk-d
irec
tor
*lea
der
has
sens
e of
resp
onsi
bilit
y
,
Ene
rgy/
:.
:.
.
Mot
ivnt
ion/
Eff
Or(
:',;ii
'...
*pos
itive
moo
d*p
ositi
ve o
utco
mes
stat
ed
._
*est
ablis
hed
rout
ines
&-w
ay o
f ta
king
car
e of
busi
ness
*cal
m, n
o th
reat
s to
iden
tify
*fee
ling
of m
atur
ity*o
rder
ly u
se o
f tim
e
Mov
emen
t Met
apho
rV
ehic
le: S
tatio
n W
agon
"to
get t
hing
s pa
cked
up
and
take
care
of
busi
ness
"Fa
iry
tale
line
: liv
e ha
ppily
ever
aft
er
*fee
ling
of im
port
ance
*pos
itive
ene
rgy
focu
sed
onta
sk*o
rder
ly u
se o
f en
ergy
*sol
id &
sus
tain
ed
1011
00
Wp'
mat
r2na
v
Tab
le 4
Mat
rix
of T
raits
by
Met
hods
by
Indi
vidu
al C
ase
#2
Cas
e2 -
Stor
y-w
ritin
g7-
.:,'.
i:
,:,i,,
i,,::,
,...,i
:::2;
;,.10
.-k`
s,''
Los
t ici
itia
iri'l
if,
i '*4
0
:y:i:
::/;:i
.::::;
,;;ty
,-:,:
;-:.!
::ikF
4;::,
p:::,
i.::::
':;ite
40,.*
iv#t
ion,
;,1
,:;,,
,,q;!
;:,.,'
1..f
..i51
,1;i?
4,.l
i"
Tap
':.c
P"'':
:.,
.,.'
,,,
0:';,
::,,..
;?!.
,':::n
.,;-':
::-.;:
'.'7;
i'i:i;
:::;
'Lea
der
FO.0
is:,:
.,:.::
-'i
'V...
, '',"
,';',
f'%f6
.,''',
.1.,?
;',...
,..:.;
;:': ,
.:
Gro
ups
-
',S
uMill
4ry
*;:,:
'.::
-::'
;:;'
::.:..
,...
Tas
k '
*110
dec
isio
ns m
ade
*bei
ng a
t a s
tand
stil
&no
rea
son
give
n*b
rain
stor
min
g bu
t no
deci
sion
mad
e
*hig
h fr
eque
ncy
cfc:
:,::
:.i.
agre
emen
t on
pare
ntco
nfer
ence
s, v
alui
ngdi
ffer
ence
s, e
ach
mem
ber
part
icip
ates
, and
dec
isio
nsar
e im
plem
ente
dlo
w f
requ
ency
: tea
mre
pres
ente
d on
sch
ool
coun
cils
, bus
ines
spa
rtne
rshi
ps, i
nnov
ativ
ete
achi
ng, s
ay in
hir
ing;
nev
erdo
them
atic
uni
ts; f
ew to
occa
sion
al c
hang
es in
clas
sroo
m
*litt
le a
mou
nt o
f cl
osur
e*f
ew d
ecis
ions
*"I
am h
ere
to p
artic
ipat
e"*l
ots
of s
ugge
stio
ns
.
Self
-rep
ort o
f le
ader
'sta
sk: l
eade
r is
fac
ilita
tor,
nurt
ures
, fee
ls h
eavy
load
to m
ove
(ck
if s
he w
rote
thes
e w
ords
); "
enab
ling,
doin
g th
e pa
perw
ork
sote
ache
rs c
an te
ach.
,
*litt
le u
nity
aro
und
task
purp
ose
& c
losu
re&
disa
gree
men
t on
amou
ntof
dis
cuss
ing
goal
s*a
ll pr
oces
s*f
ew o
utco
mes
incl
assr
oom
or
mee
tings
'
..:
:i'...
':
::,-
.'.:
Rel
atio
nshi
p , .,
:
*ide
ntif
icat
ion
of te
ams
with
lead
ers
*gre
ater
aff
iliat
ion
than
task
foc
us*p
ictu
re #
3 (a
mee
ting)
peo
ple
are
pass
ive
and
noth
ing
gets
don
e ca
used
by:
(1)
peop
le d
ivid
edw
ith o
pini
ons
resu
lting
in 3
sol
utio
ns (
2) ti
me
pres
sure
s*n
o ro
les
give
n
*med
ium
fre
quen
cy: m
ost
cont
ribu
te, b
ring
clo
sure
,go
od u
se o
f tim
eD
isag
reem
ent o
n: d
iscu
ssin
gte
am g
oals
*no
subg
roup
s*t
eam
is a
suc
cess
bec
ause
"we
get a
long
, but
not
frie
nds,
and
our
per
sona
litie
scl
ash"
*3 o
f 4
peop
le h
igh
trus
t &en
joy
and
will
ing
toco
oper
ate;
oth
er p
erso
n fe
els
no tr
ust,
not s
ame
belie
fs, n
oen
joy,
sel
dom
"al
l of
us a
rew
illin
g to
coo
pera
te"
*fas
t-m
ovin
g ta
lk a
mon
gm
embe
rs
*liv
ely,
sen
se o
f hu
mor
*lot
s of
sto
ries
abo
ut s
tude
nts
*sam
e am
ount
of
talk
ing
betw
een
two
mem
bers
with
sam
e am
ount
of
ques
tioni
ngan
d su
gges
ting
*one
mem
ber
(3 m
onth
s on
team
, 1st
yea
r te
ache
r) is
byst
ande
r..
Tea
m M
etap
hor:
Her
d of
ele
phan
ts
Bes
t par
t of
Tea
min
g:"w
e al
l do
our
part
s an
d tr
yto
hel
p ea
ch o
ther
"\
Bes
t thi
ng o
ur te
am h
asdo
ne: t
o he
lp s
ever
alst
uden
ts m
ake
life
chan
ging
dif
fere
nces
inth
eir
scho
ol li
ves
*coh
esiv
e of
gro
up m
ore
impo
rtan
t tha
n ta
sk
* on
e pe
rson
is a
rec
ent
addi
tion
to te
am a
ndve
rbal
ly p
artic
ipat
es li
ttle
*one
per
son
feel
s un
like
the
othe
rs
*con
trad
ictio
ns in
the
find
ings
rel
ated
tore
latio
nshi
ps: t
he te
amta
lks
unity
but
div
isio
ns a
reap
pare
nt*n
o ro
les
*hig
h pa
rtic
ipat
ion
from
3of
4 m
embe
rs
12
I.\
Tab
le 4
(co
nt.)
:M
atri
x of
Tra
its b
y M
etho
ds b
y In
divi
dual
Cas
e #2
...
:
::!
''::::
::,...
:,;;..
'.:%
::',
'.'-:
:::.:'
.,St
ory-
wri
ting ' ' ''
, .".
:.
;.,,,
...;2
,1;r
:',),
1!':.
;',.iQ
;,,c,
',(i;:
:"'
:-O
stiO
n:ph
ire:
Y'%
:;.'i.
.'':i+
.,'4.
1.:':
;:,-'
.);:'
:!,.:
.:;,,-
.1:.,
:pi,i
.,,,,:
..0.,.
:0iis
:;:.:1
!?..
teef
.046
tiqiii
ilq.'0
A''.
N:4
3.-7
11''',
1::..
1-'',
-;:''
'''''.
:i;'.:
N)1
M40
.Tet
iiii:M
ictin
gs,i:
,,,,r
,.;:;!
..,,,.
;\;:',
;:e8
00e*
000i
.,,,::
:,:,,,
,'
Gro
ups
-:'
;''':.
':::.:
:';'::
;:!.':
:.....
.',':.
.
Sum
mar
y
.
Lea
ders
hip
:
':::
::-..
:',.
*no
lead
ersh
ip b
ehav
iors
desc
ribe
d*n
o re
fere
nce
mad
e to
lead
ersh
ip
,':
--
.
*lea
der
talk
s m
ost,
enab
les,
clar
ifie
s, f
acili
tate
s, h
as m
ost
task
em
phas
is,
Wor
st th
ing
our
team
has
done
: to
try
to h
andl
e al
ldi
scip
line
ours
elve
s fo
rto
o lo
ngH
arde
st P
art o
fLea
der's
Job:
"be
ing
the
soun
ding
boar
d an
d lis
teni
ng to
ever
yone
's g
ripe
s an
d th
enno
t get
ting
angr
y or
depr
esse
dPa
rt I
pla
yed:
to m
ake
sure
stud
ents
got
the
help
, sp.
Serv
ices
, and
sup
port
they
need
ed; I
kee
p tr
ying
tofi
nd n
ew w
ays
to k
eep
our
stud
ents
goi
ng
*lea
der
faci
litat
es &
nurt
ures
but l
ack
of d
irec
tions
and
brin
ging
dis
cuss
ion
tocl
osur
e.
Lea
der
focu
ses
on h
elpi
ngst
uden
ts a
nd h
elpi
ngte
ache
rs
Ene
rgy!
: -:.'
:, :,'
Mot
ivat
ion!
,'E
.'
Eff
ort
,.:.
::
*mor
e po
sitiv
e fe
elin
gsex
pres
sed
with
pic
ture
ii 1
(aw
ard
cere
mon
y) a
nd #
2(o
utin
g w
ith s
nake
dem
onst
ratio
n)--
both
of
whi
ch s
how
peo
ple
stan
ding
and
wat
chin
g
*liv
elin
ess
but n
o re
solu
tion
or d
ecis
ions
mad
e on
pts
of
disc
ussi
on
*und
erly
ing
heav
ines
s*b
lock
ed e
nerg
y*l
ack
of f
ocus
and
clo
sure
. ..
Mov
emen
t Met
apho
rV
ehic
le: B
ig v
an, w
e'd
alw
ays
be d
oing
som
ethi
ngan
d ne
ed th
e ro
om
Fair
y T
ale
Lin
e: P
rinc
ess
cutti
ng th
roug
h a
thic
ket,
"we'
ve h
ad s
ever
al te
rrib
lecr
isis
and
we'
ve m
ade
itth
roug
h"
*hea
vine
ss*l
ack
of m
ovin
g
U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)
National Library of Education (NLE)Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)
REPRODUCTION RELEASE(Specific Document)
I. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION:
o
pt- h - thiA.a im,teT11,64 --i-4,4AA/te4Ase-241j,tatul,144, RAAAC 47,61/1 I
Author(s): TrivOole, 61.A.4. w Pekeits 0 i1/43
Title:
Corporate Source: Publication Date:
II. REPRODUCTION RELEASE:In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documents announced in the
monthly abstract journal of the ERIC system, Resources in Education (RIE), are usually made available to users in microfiche, reproduced paper copy,and electronic media, and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). Credit is given to the source of each document, and, ifreproduction release is granted, one of the following notices is affixed to the document.
If permission is granted to reproduce and disseminate the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following three options and sign at the bottomof the page.
The sample sticker shown below will beaffixed to all Level 1 documents
1
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
BEEN GRANTED BY
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
Level I
Check here for Level 1 release, permitting reproductionand dissemination in microfiche or other ERIC archival
media (e.g., electronic) and paper copy.
Signhere, -please
The sample sticker shown below will beaffixed to all Level 2A documents
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN
MICROFICHE, AND IN ELECTRONIC MEDIAFOR ERIC COLLECTION SUBSCRIBERS ONLY,
HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
2A
\e
s'``\c'TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
Level 2A
Check here for Level 2A release, permitting reproductionand dissemination in microfiche and in electronic media
for ERIC archival collection subscribers only
The sample sticker shown below will beaffixed to all Level 2B documents
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN
MICROFICHE ONLY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
2B
c9TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
Level 28
Check here for Level 28 release, permittingreproduction and dissemination in microfiche only
Documents will be processed as Indicated provided reproduction quality permits.If permission to reproduce Is granted, but no box is checked, documents will be processed at Level 1.
I hereby grant to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce and disseminate this documentas indicated above. Reproductidn from the ERIC microfiche or electronic media by persons other than ERIC employees and its systemcontractors requires permission from the copyright holder. Exception is made for non-profit reproduction by libraries and other service agenciesto satisfy information needs of educators in response to discrete inquiries.
sq'ardh,yrity,- PoNdivvi,AiLOrganization/Address:
P. OADVe'l) St& 50 LAIrtA WV\ n VersiSi-it,4-e4 to tro 644 43/44, 4040
n _
Printed Name/Position/T,,itle
cti.Savt r10110 (e
Tr°27- (A, I 6-44a FAX 611 -mac°E-Mail Address: Date: Ai -qgt454,-1-(1-v4q5v11&2_ cc . 9A,50 ,M0
III. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY INFORMATION (FROM NON-ERIC SOURCE):
If permission to reproduce is not granted to ERIC, or, if you wish ERIC to cite the availability of the document from another source, pleaseprovide the following information regarding the availability of the document. (ERIC will not announce a document unless it is publiclyavailable, and a dependable source can be specified. Contributors should also be aware that ERIC selection criteria are significantly morestringent for documents that cannot be made available through EDRS.)
Publisher/Distributor:
Address:
Price:
IV. REFERRAL OF ERIC TO COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION RIGHTS HOLDER:
If the right to grant this reproduction release is held by someone other than the addressee, please provide the appropriate name andaddress:
Name:
Address:
V. WHERE TO SEND THIS FORM:
Send this form to the following ERIC Clearinghouse:THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
ERIC CLEARINGHOUSE ON ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION1129 SHRIVER LAB, CAMPUS DRIVE
COLLEGE PARK, MD 20742-5701Attn: Acquisitions
However, if solicited by the ERIC Facility, or if making an unsolicited contribution to ERIC, return this form (and the document beingcontributed) to:
ERIC Processing and Reference Facility1100 West Street, 2nd Floor
Laurel, Maryland 20707-3598
Telephone: 301-497-4080Toll Free: 800-799-3742
FAX: 301-953-0263e -mail: [email protected]
WWW: http://ericfac.piccard.csc.com
EFF-088 (Rev. 9/97)PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF THIS FORM ARE OBSOLETE.
