THE COMPARISON OF A TEAM/GROUP DYNAMICS TRAINING …/67531/metadc164507/m2/1/high_re… · Model Within Leadership Training Workshops. Doctor of Education ... a team/group dynamics

THE COMPARISON OF A TEAM/GROUP DYNAMICS TRAINING

MODEL WITH A TEAM/TRADITIONAL TRAINING MODEL

WITHIN LEADERSHIP TRAINING WORKSHOPS

APPROVEDj

Graduate Committeei

ijor i-r pressor

Mlnop~>pr of es s or £

C o mra i vfc e e Me racer

Oomm

Dean of the Oollese

Dean of the- Graduate School

t t

Carrier, Judith J., The Comparison of a Team/Group

Dynamics Training Model With a Team/Traditional Training

Model Within Leadership Training Workshops. Doctor of

Education (Counseling and Personnel Administration),

December, 1971, 137 pp., 11 tables, bibliography, 160 titles.

This study was conducted to compare two different

approaches to leadership training workshops—a team/group

dynamics training model with a team/traditional training

model—with regard to the changes in tolerance, open-

mindedness, flexibility, adaptability, and cooperativeness

of the participants in the group dynamics model.

Four groups of female instructors from four separate

educational institutions in the North Central Texas area

comprised the population for this study. Of the seventy-

six subjects, twenty school of nursing instructors partici-

pated in a leadership training treatment group which utilized

a group dynamics training approach. Eighteen elementary

school teachers participated in a leadership training treat-

ment group which utilized a traditional training approach.

Two comparison groups were utilized—one consisted of

eighteen school of nursing instructors, and the other con-

sisted of twenty elementary school teachers, neither of

which received treatments.

All subjects in the study were administered the Rokeach

Dogmatism Scale. Form E, the Barrett-Lennard Relationship

Inventory, the Personal Concept Scale, and the Evaluation

Scale. Using the Fisher's t Test, the t test for correlated

means, and the analysis of covariance, it was determined

that treatment subjects utilizing the group dynamics training

model made greater increases in mean scores on three of the

five relationship variables than did subjects in the tradi-

tional training model and subjects in the comparison groups.

From pre- to post-testing, these increases in mean scores

were statistically significant at the .05 level? and from

post- to follow-up testing, these increases in mean scores

were statistically significant at the .10 level. The sub-

jects in the group dynamics model showed significantly

greater change than the traditional training model and the

comparison groups on personal concept congruence, signifi-

cant at the .0001 level. The instructors in the group

dynamics model also made statistically significant increases

from pre- to post-test in self evaluation, significant at the

.0001 level.

Several conclusions were drawn from the findings. In-

structors in the group dynamics training model showed greater

over-all increases in mean scores in perceived, positive,

interpersonal relationships, and expressions for fellow staff

members. The subjects in the group dynamics model exhibited

increased involvement in group activities and greater

interaction with group members in discussions. Subjects in

the group dynamics model showed increased congruence "be-

tween self perceptions of contributions to group functioning

and colleagues' perceptions of the individual's contributions

to the group's functioning within the team setting.

It was recommended that further research be considered

to determine the extent to which participants* beliefs,

attitudes, values, and personality characteristics change

as a result of participation in leadership training work-

shops? that further research extend to other professional

and vocational disciplines to ascertain the influence of

group dynamics leadership training models in other settings}

and that training programs be designed and implemented in

the areas of group dynamics training with emphasis on theories,

applications, and techniques for the training of leaders

for training workshops.

THE COMPARISON OF A TEAM/GROUP DYNAMICS TRAINING

MODEL WITH A TEAM/TRADITIONAL TRAINING MODEL

WITHIN LEADERSHIP TRAINING WORKSHOPS

DISSERTATION

Presented to the Graduate Council of the

North Texas State University in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

By

Judith J.. Carrier, B. S., M, Ed. //

Denton, Texas

December, 1971

Copyright by

Judith J. Carrier

1971

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES v

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION . . . 1 Statement of the Problem Hypotheses Background, and Significance Definition of Terms Limitations of the Study-Chapter Bibliography

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 23

Introduction The Personal Qualities of Effective

Team Members The Measurement of Change The Preparation of Team Members The Emergence of Group Dynamics The Utilization of Group Dynamics in

Training Workshops Summary Chapter Bibliography

III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES 6l

Subjects Description of Instruments

• Procedures for Collection of Data Procedures for the Team/Group Dynamics

Leadership Training Workshop Procedures for the Team/Traditional

Leadership Training Workshop Procedures for Analysis of Data Chapter Bibliography

IV. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF RESULTS 82

Hypothesis One Hypothesis Two Hypothesis Three

iii

Page Hypothesis Four Hypothesis Five Hypothesis Six Hypothesis Seven Hypothesis Eight Hypothesis Nine

V. SUMMARY, RESULTS, INTERPRETATION, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS. , 9^

APPENDIX 105

BIBLIOGRAPHY 125

IV

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

I, Pre-Test and Post-Test Mean Scores on the Relationship Inventory 83

II. Post-Test and Follow-up Test Mean Scores on the Relationship Inventory. . . . . . . 8̂ -

III, Summary of Covariance Derived From Data on the Relationship Inventory. . . . . . . 86

IV. Pre-Test and Post-Test Mean Scores on the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale. . . . . . . . 87

V. Summary of Covariance Derived From Data on the Personal Concept Scale 8?

VI. Pre-Test and Post-Test Mean Scores on the Personal Concept Scale . 88

VII. Post-Test and Follow-up Test Mean Scores on the Personal Concept Scale . 89

VIII. Pre-Test and Post-Test Mean Scores on the Evaluation Scale 90

IX. Post-Test and Follow-up Mean Scores on the Evaluation Scale . 91

X. Pre-Test, Post-Test, Means and Standard Deviations of Treatment Group II and Comparison Groups on the Personal Concept Scale 123

XI. Pre-Test and Post-Test Means and Standard Deviations of Relationship Inventory Scores 12k

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Since its introduction in the late 1950s, team teaching

has become one of the most popular innovations in American

education (6, 18, 27, yi, 3̂ > 62, 78, 98). It has been

portrayed as the answer to critical shortages in teachers

and facilities, as the way to reward teaching excellence

and encourage specialization, and as the means to bring

needed flexibility into scheduling, grouping of students,

and use of resources (7. 15, 22, 26, 34, 41). Team teaching

has also been challenged as a potential panacea which should

be employed only with the utmost caution (7» 17. 39» 45, 46,

69).

The literature on team teaching has proliferated in the

decade or so since its introduction, but has focused upon

the advantages and problems involved, organizational

methodology, and theoretical constructs (4, 11, 13, 16, 21,

23» 29, 57» 72). At the center of all effective team teaching,

however, is the teacher himself. In a review of the research

on team teaching, Heather (49, p. 338) finds it remarkable

that in spite of the importance of teachers* roles and

working relationships to team teaching plans, "few studies

of teachers* attitudes have been reported." "Equally re-

markable," he continues, "is the superficial nature of these

studies." While advocates of team teaching have been willing

to speculate on the characteristics of an effective team

member, and while practically all supporters of the team

approach insist that adequate preparation is critical to

successful team work (33» 52, 53)» few team teaching pro-

ponents have produced concrete proposals based on research

to guide administrators, teachers, and counselors in

selecting and orienting potential team members.

Nursing educators were among the first to employ and

evaluate broadly team teaching techniques (48, 9 6 ) . In

their evaluations it has been suggested that most,critical

to team teaching success are the teachers' personality

characteristics, self concepts, attitudes, and capacity to

interact with other teachers involved in the team effort

(24, 43, 48, 6 0 ) . In searching for a way to measure and

affect these individual dimensions, nursing educators have

suggested that workshops devoted to intensive orientation

of prospective team teachers are most effective (3, 54, 59 ) .

On the bases of these and similar studies, it seems reasonable

to assume that a preparatory training workshop experience

for institutional staff members can reveal to team teachers

their own strengths and problem areas in relation to effective

teamwork, especially if the leadership training program con-

sists of an integration of didactic instruction with

applications of group dynamics principles. It, therefore,

becomes necessary to determine if such an experience can be

instrumental in affecting or modifying instructors' capacities

for positive interpersonal relationships, including acceptance

of self, acceptance of others, adaptability, flexibility,

tolerance, and cooperativeness.

Statement of the Problem

The problem of this study was to compare two leader-

ship training approaches: a team/group dynamics training

model and a team/traditional training model.

Hypotheses

To carry out the purposes of this study, the following

hypotheses were formulated,

1. The mean scores on the post-test of the Relation-

shit) Inventory for subjects receiving Treatment I (T^) will

be significantly higher than the mean scores on the pre-test

on the following dimensionsi

a. Level of Regard

b. Empathic Understanding

c. Congruence *

d. Unconditionality of Regard

e. Total Score

2, The mean scores on the follow-up test of the

Relationship Inventory for T± will be significantly higher

than the mean scores on the post-test on the following

dimensionsi

a. Level of Regard


c. Congruence


e. Total Score

3. The mean scores on the post-test of the Relation-

ship Inventory for Ti will be significantly higher than for

subjects receiving Treatment II (T2), for Comparison Group

I (Ci), and for Comparison Group II (Cg) on the following

dimensionsi

a. Level of Regard


c. Congruence

d. Unconditonality of Regard

e. Total Score

k, The mean scores on the post-test of the Rokeach

Dogmatism Scale for Ti will be significantly lower than the

mean scores on the pre-test.

5. The mean scores on the post-test of the Personal

Concept Scale for T2, Cj, and C2 will be significantly

higher than the mean scores on the pre-test,

6. The mean scores on the post-test of the Personal

Concept Scale for Ti will be significantly higher than the


7. The mean scores on the follow-up test of the

Personal Concept Scale for Ti will be significantly higher

than the mean scores on the post-test,

8. The mean scores on the post-test of the Evaluation

Scale for Ti will be significantly higher than the mean

scores on the pre-test,

9. The mean scores on the follow-up test of the

Evaluation Scale for Ti will be significantly higher than

the mean scores on the pre-test.

Background and Significance

Although historically it has several earlier proto-

types, the concept of team teaching emerged from a study

in 1957 by Trump (92) of staff utilization practices in

public schools and was part of the broadening interest in

educational reform which followed the post-Sputnik concern

for the quality and efficiency of American educational

institutions (5. 32, 34, 41, 68, 78, 8 5 , 98). In spite of

words of caution by leading educators, especially with

regard to zealous implementation without proper preparation

(13» 39. 45, 6 7 , 6 9 , 9 0 ) , hundreds of schools across the

nation have inaugurated experimental team teaching programs

in the past decade (5. 27, 46, 5 3 , 64, 6 5 , 9 8 , 99). This

interest and activity has resulted in a virtual explosion of

literature on the advantages, problems, methodology, and

practices of team teaching ( 2 8 , 50 , 8 7 , 96). Most of these

writings, however, are based on speculation or superficial

observation, and result usually in hopeful projections and

appeals for additional research (34, 58, 98).

The most striking void in team teaching research is

related to the teacher's role and attitudes in the team

teaching situation and the means of examining, evaluating,

and changing these factors (12, p. 64} 49» pp. 333-338? 6l,

p. 30^! 49). Brownell and Taylor (16), in an important

analysis of theoretical perspectives for teaching teams

have determined that the greatest difficulties in effective

team teaching are related to (1) finding teachers who can

function harmoniously as a team; (2) finding strong team

leaders} (3) forcing independent and creative teachers into

groups which inhibit their freedom} and (4) lowering the

morale of non-team teachers. In the team experience, in-

dividual identity and team spirit are noticeably affected

by the team interaction, as are ability to communicate ideas

and values and to experience role changes. Several writers

(37» 58( 82) indicate that while the team teaching approach

exploits the special skills of individual teachers, it

also attacks the citadel of the teacher's autonomy and

security and exposes the attitudes, self-concepts, and

capacities for group interaction in the team members. For

these reasons, several attempts have been made to isolate

the characteristics of effective team teachers and to con-

struct some means of modifying those characteristics in

potential team members before they embark on the team pro-

ject (5, 37, 58) . Heller (50) for example, has suggested

that the most desirable qualities in team members are

pliability, creativity, compatability, leadership, cooper-

ativeness, communicativeness, willingness to change, and

adequate ego-strength. A number of other authors (2, 6, 11,

22, 39» 52, 57) agree that flexibility, role identification

and accepatance, and capacity for personal interaction in a

group process are critical to an effective team member.

Conversely, say Weiss and Morris (97, p. 207), inflexibility

and dogmatic attitudes disqualify one for participation in

a team situation, as do jealousy, status insecurity, and

several other characteristic related to the rigid personality,

The same characteristics and attitudes which affect

team teaching generally have been found to influence con-

siderably the success of team efforts in nursing education,

also. Nurses function in a highly stratified, bureaucratic

world where role identification and status are well defined.

Nurses tend to be security conscious because of the enormous

responsibility involved in their work (62). But team

teaching requires openness, flexibility, willingness ;to

change roles often, and constant peer group evaluation. The

advantages in specialization, sharing of teaching respon-

sibility, leadership development, and rotation of leadership,

however, have encouraged nursing educators to undertake team

teaching on a broad scale (24, 43, 54). Harty (48) listed

8

the broad objectives of team teaching for nursing educators

as (l) to improve our self-insight; (2) to redefine our

values; (3) to improve our communication skills; (^) to

develop leadership; (5) to broaden the role concept of

nursing; and (6) to strengthen teaching and learning outcomes.

These goals have been tested somewhat in an analysis by-

Kramer (59) in which both team teachers and students were

asked to evaluate the teacher achievements in a team project.

Nursing educators now realize, as do educators in other

educational settings, that some type of leadership training

program is essential to examine the attitudes, self-concepts,

and capacities for interaction of potential team teachers

prior to undertaking a team project (̂ -3, *J<8, 59, 6o),

Cartwright (20) suggests that change in individuals and

in total group functioning may be enhanced through the

knowledge and use of scientifically based principles known

as group dynamics.

As an identifiable field in its own right, group

dynamics began to emerge in the late 1930s and to employ

research methods characteristic of empirical science, in-

cluding observation, quantification, measurement,

experimentation, construction of theory,and derivation of

testable hypotheses. The evolution of group dynamics prior

to that point, however, had proceeded slowly, waiting upon

the gradual development of society and of the social sciences

themselves to the point that the study of groups by scien-

tific methodology seemed both desirable and possible (20,

PP. 7-13).

The cultural milieu of the 1930s, with its Depression-

produced emphasis on seeking rational, planned, problem-

solving approaches to social problems, was fertile for the

growth of interest in group relations and activities. By

that time, a body of ideas about groups, or more specifically,

about individuals functioning within groups, had emerged to

provide a basic theoretical framework for the study of group

dynamics. Lewin popularized the term group dynamics, and

contributed immensely to research and theory in the formative

stages. The work of many others, including Freud, Redl,

Scheidlinger, Slavson, Moreno, Bion, and Back, counted

heavily in introducing students of psychology to the new

categories of group relations; namely, leadership, status,

communication, social norms, group atmosphere, and inter-

group relations (20, pp. 9-H). At the same time changes

in educational philosophy, significantly influenced by the

writings of Dewey, encouraged the concept of the teacher as

a group leader, who affects students* learning not merely

by competency in relating subject matter, but through his

ability to heighten motivation, stimulate participation, and

generate morale. At the same time, leaders in the training

of professionals in business management developed an

appreciation for a better understanding of group relations.

10

Cartwright and Zander note three methodological

developments contributing directly to the rise of group

dynamics t

1. Experimental psychology invented techniques for

conducting experiments on individual behavior within

group situations. While these techniques did not deal

directly with the properties of groups, they "made it

evident that the influence of groups upon individuals could

be studied experimentally,and they made it easier to con-

ceive of the idea of varying group properties experimentally

in the laboratories."

2. Controlled observations of social interaction were

effected. Particularly in the field of child psychology,

scientists in the 1930s constructed categories of ob-

servation to chart the presence or absence of certain

types of behavior or social interaction, especially overt

interactions, reducible to classifiable categories and pro-

ductive or quantitative data of high reliablity,

3. Sociometric techniques were utilized. Asking

questions of group members, even though the answers re-

flected only what individuals were able or willing to relate,

produced concepts of group relations which, when integrated

with objective observations and sociometric devices,

significantly broadened the understanding of the dynamics

of group experiences. "The significance of sociometry for *

group dynamics lay both in the provisions of a useful technique

11

for research on groups and in the attention it directed to

such features of groups as social position, patterns of

friendship, subgroup formation, and more generally, informal

structure"(20, pp. 21-22),

Several studies indicate that increased self-study and

group-study by team teachers can take place in a leadership

training workshop, if the program utilizes applications of

group dynamics principles and if the workshop is geared to

discussing feelings about the project, to practicing techniques

of team teaching, and to interacting with team members, with

visiting specialists, and with staff personnel (12, pp. 31-4-0;

29» 51» PP« 14-5-15*0. The question of whether such a work-

shop can successfully affect change toward more desirable

characteristics for potential team members is thus a valid

one for investigation.

Definition of Terms

1. Team teaching—This term is defined as

. . . a type of instructional organization, involving teaching personnel and the students assigned to them, in which two or more teachers are given responsibility, working together, for all or a significant part of the instruction of the same group of students (86, p. 15).

2. Dogmatism—This term is defined as

A closed way of thinking which could be associated with any ideology regardless of content; an authoritarian outlook on life; an intolerance toward those with opposing beliefs; sufferance for, and an attraction to, those holding similar beliefs (81).

12

3. Group Dynamics—This term is defined as

. . . a field of inquiry dedicated to advancing knowledge about the nature of groups, the laws of their development, and their interrelations with individuals, other groups and large institutions. It may be identified by its reliance upon empirical research for ob-taining data of theoretical significance, its emphasis in research and theory upon the dynamic aspects of group life, its broad relevance to all the social sciences, and the potential applicability of its findings to the improvement of social practice (20, p. 19).

Team/Group Dynamics Training Model—This term is

defined asi specialists in the area of team teaching and

specialists in the area of group dynamics utilizing an

integration of didactic instruction and applications of

selected group dynamics principles throughout the leader-

ship training workshop with small groups, when utilized,

composed of four to six subjects.

5. Team/Traditional Training Model—This term is

defined as» specialists in the area of team teaching

utilizing didactic instruction throughout the leadership

training workshop with small groups, when utilized, composed

of fifty to seventy-five subjects.

6. The terms empathic understanding, congruence, level

of regard and unconditionality of regard are defined "by

Barrett-Lennard in the Relationship Inventory as follows«

Empathic understanding is conceived as the extent to which one person is conscious of the immediate awareness of another. Qualitatively it is an active process of desiring to know the full present and changing awareness of another person, of reaching out to receive his communication and meaning, and of translating his words and signs

13

into experienced meaning that matches at least those aspects of his awareness that are most important to him at the moment.

Level of regard refers to the affective aspect of one person's response to another. This may include various qualities and strengths of 'positive' and 'negative' feeling. Positive feelings include respect, liking, appreciation, affection, and any other affectively adient response. Conversely, negative feelings in-clude dislike, impatience, contempt, and in general affectively adient responses.

Congruence refers to the degree to which one person is functionally integrated in the con-text of his relationship with another, such that there is absence of conflict, or incon-sistency between his total experience, his awareness, and his overt communication, in his congruence in this relationship. . . the highly congruent individual is completely honest, direct, and sincere in what he conveys, but he does not feel any compulsion to communicate his perceptions, or any need to withhold them for emotionally self protective reasons (8, pp,3~^)#

Unconditionality of regard implies, from the standpoint of the respondent, it is the person of the receiver that is being differ-entially regarded. This differential regard for the receiving person is evoked in the re-garding person by different self experiences or behaviors of the receiver. The relevant aspect of the regarding person's response is not his own attitudinal or feeling state, perceived as such, but the experienced message or meaning this has in terms of the receiving person being more or less pleasing, worthy, valued, trusted, liked or disliked, etc., if he manifests certain self-attributes than if or when he manifests others (9» p. 7).

Ik

Limitations of the Study

This study was limited to female subjects who were

full-time instructional staff members at Baylor University

School of Nursing, Texas Womans University School of

Nursing, and full-time teachers in elementary schools, all

of which were located in the North Central Texas area.

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Aden, R. C,, "Team Teaching at North Texas State University, 1960-1961," Peabody Journal of Education. XXXIX (March, 1962), I83 - I87 .

2. "Administrative Developments, Discussion Groups and Team Teaching," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin. XLVI (October. 1962), 53.

3. Allen, Virginia 0., "Improving Communications," Nursing: Outlook. X (May, 1962), 523.

4. "An Administrator's Guide to Team Teaching," Educational Executive Overview. I (April, 1963) , 54-55.

5. Anderson, Robert H., "Team Teaching," National Education Association Journal. L (March, 1961), 52-55.

, "Team Teaching with Examples of Projects," National Education Association Journal. L (April, 196177 52-54.

7. Arnold, W. E., "Is Team Teaching the Answer," School and Society. XCI (December, 1963) , 407-409.

8. Barrett-Lennard, G. T., Technical Note on the 64-Item Revision of the Relationship Inventory. Ontario, Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, 1 9 6 9 .

9* — ^ and L, N, Jewell, "A Selection of Reported Studies Using the Relationship Inventory," unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Ontario, 1966.

10. Becker, Harry A., "Team Teaching." Instructor. LXXI (June, 1962), 43-45. .

11. Beggs, David W., editor, Team Teaching» Bold New Venture, Indianapolis, Unified College Press, 1964.

12. Beggs, David W, and Edward G. Buffie, "The Pitfalls and Promise of Large Group Instruction," American School Board Journal. CXLVIII (May, 1964), 21-22.

15

16

13. Bartlett, Alton, "Changing Behavior as a Means to In-creased Efficiency," Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. Ill (Spring, 1967) , 381-401.

14. Bonney, Merl E., The Normal Personality. Berkeley, McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1969.

15. Brown, Charles I,, "Make It A Team Teaching Venture," Clearing House. XXVII (February, 1963). 340-342,

16 . Brownell, John A, and Harris A, Taylor, "Theoretical Perspectives for Teaching Teams," Phi Delta Kappan. XLIII (June, 1962) , 150-157.

17. Bush, Robert N., "Editorial: A Searching Appraisal of New Developments," Journal of Secondary Education. XXXVII (October, 1962), 322.

18. Carlin, Philip M., "A Current Appraisal of Team Teaching," Education, LXXXV (February, 1965) , 348-353.

19# Cartwright, Do'rwin, "Achieving Change in People: Some Applications of Group Dynamics Theory," Human Relations, IV (1951) , 381-392.

20. and Alvin Zander, Group Dynamics: Research and Theory. New York, Harper and Row, 1968,

21. Clement, Stanley L,, "More Time for Teaching," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin. XLVI (December, 1962) , 54-59.

22. Corrigan, Dean and Robert Hynes, "What Have We Learned from Team Teaching?" Social Education. XXVIII (April, 1964), 205-208.

23 . Cromer, Lyla, Rheba de Tornyay, and Marion McDermott, "Learning To Do Team Teaching," Nursing Outlook. XVIII (September, 1970), 44-45,

24. Cunningham, Luvern L., "Keys to Team Teaching, "Overview. ' I (October, i 9 6 0 ) , 54-55,

25. . , "Viewing Change in School Organi-zations," Administrator's Notebook. XI (September, 1962) , 1 - 4 ,

26. , "Team Teaching: Where Do We Stand?" Administrator's Notebook. VIII (April, i 960 ) 1-4.

17

27. Darling, D. W., "Team Teaching! Wisconsin Improvement Program," National Education Association Journal, LI¥ (May, 1965). 24-25.

28. Davis, Harold S., How to Organize an Effective Team Teaching Program. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 1966.

2 9 . , "Planning for Team Teaching," Education. LXXXV (February, 1965)1 333-336.

30. , The Effect of Team Teaching on Teachers, Detroit, Wayne State University, Publisher, 1962.

31 . Davis, 0, L., "Grouping for Instructions Some Per-spectives," Educational Forum. XXIV (January, i 9 6 0 ) , 2 0 9 - 2 1 6 .

32 . Dean, Steward E., "Team Teaching s A Review," School Life. XLIV (September, 1 9 6 1 ) , 5.

33. Dix, J, P., "Team Teaching Requires Team Spirit," School and Community. XLIX (November, 1 9 6 2 ) , 27.

34. Drummond, Harold D., "Team Teachings An Assessment," Educational Leadership. XIX (December, 1 9 6 1 ) , l 6 o .

35. Durrell, Donald 0., "Implementing and Evaluating Pupil-Team Learning Plans," Journal of Educational Sociology, XXXIV (April, 1961), 3 6 0 - 3 6 5 .

36 . Elliot, Richard W., "Team Teaching: Effective In-Service Training," American School Board Journal. CXLIV (February, 1 9 6 2 ) , 19.

37. Fea, H. R., "Team Teachings Psychological Implications," Clearing House. XLIV (November, 1968), 177-179.

38. Fox, David, Lorraine K. Diamond, Ruth C. Walsh, Lucille Knopf, and Jean Jodgin, "Characteristics of Basic Nursing Faculty," Nursing Outlook. XII(December, 1964), 40—44•

39. Fraenkel, Jack and Richard E. Gross, "Team Teachings A Note of Caution Is In Order," National Education Association Journal. LVI (ApriTi 1 9 6 7 ) , 16-17.

40. Friedlander, Frank, "The Primacy of Trust As A Facilitator of Further Group Accomplishment," Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. VI (1970), 387-400.

18

41. Gamhold, Willard J,, "The Modern Teacher and New Media of Instruction," Education, LXXXII (October, 1962) , 6 7 - 7 0 . —

42. Garrett, W, S., "Prediction of Academic Success in a School of Nursing," Personnel and Guidance Journal, XXXVIII (February, i 960 ), 500-503.

43. Geitgey, Doria A., "Some Thoughts on Team Teaching in Nursing Education," Nursing Outlook. X (October. 1967) , 66-68 .

44. Gelinas, Agnes, Nursing and Nursing Education. New York, The Commonwealth Fund, 1946.

45. Georgiades, W.# J. R, Fraenkel, and R. E. Gross, "Team Teaching," National Education Association Journal. LVI (April, 1967) , 14-17.

46. Gilchrist, Robert S., "Promising Practices in Education, II»" Phi Delta Kappan. XLI (March, i 9 6 0 ) , 269-274 .

47. Gough, Harrison G., The California Psychological Inventory Manual. Palo Alto, Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., 1969.

48. Hanslovsky, Gle'nda, Sue Moyer, and Helen Wagner, Why Team Teaching. Columbus, Ohio, C. E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1969.

49. Harty, Margaret B., "Team Teaching," Nursing Outlook. XI (January, 1963) , 59-61,

50. Heather, Glen, "Research in Team Teaching," Team Teaching, edited by Judson T. Shaplin, New York, Harper and Row, 1964.

51. Heller, Melvin P., "Qualities for Team Members," Team Teaching Bold New Venture, edited by David W. Beggs, Bloomington, Indiana, Indiana University Press, 1968.

52. and Elizabeth Belford, "Hierarchy in Team Teaching," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin. XLVI i , 59-64.

53* — , "Team Teaching and Staff utilization in Ridgewood High School," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin. XLVI (January, 1962), 105-122.

19

54. and Imogene King, "Team Teaching! Values and Advantages," Nursing Outlook. XIII (October, 1965), 50-51.

55. Hilgard, E. R,, "Human Dimension in College Teaching," National Education Association Journal. LIV (September, 1965), 43-^5.

56. Hooper, Ned E,, "The Training Process for Team Teaching," Journal of Teacher Education. XIV (June,.1963)1 177.

57. Hoppach, Ann, "Team Teachingi Form Without Substance," National Education Association Journal. L (April, 1961), 47-48.

58. Ingram, J. F., "Time for Team Teaching," American Vocational Journal, XLII (February, 1967)» 2,

59. Johnson, Robert Henry and John J. Hunt, Rx for Team Teaching. Minneapolis, Burgess Publishing Company, 1968.

60. Kramer, Marlene, "Team Teaching Is More Than Team Planning," Nursing Outlook. XVI (July, 1968), 47-50,

61. Layton, Sister Mary Michele, "How Instructors' Attitudes Affect Students," Nursing Outlook. XVII (January, 1969), 27-29.

62. Mahoney, William M., "Try Co-ordinate Teaching," American School Board Journal. CXXXIX (November, 1959), 13-14.

63. McKeachie, W. J,, "Current Research on Teacher Effectiveness," Improving College and University Teaching. X (1962), 15-19.

64. Meyer, J, A,, "Group Grope: Problem of Team Teaching," Clearing House. XLII (February, 1968), 362-364,

65. Michael, Lloyd S,, "Team Teaching," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin. XLVII (May, 1963), 36-63.

66. Mitchell, Wanda B., "Why Try Team Teaching?" National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin. XLVI (January, 1962), 247-252,

67. Morlan, John E., "Think Twice About Team Teaching," Instructor. LXXIII (September, 1963), 65, 72-73, 142.

20

68. Morse, Arthur D., "Open Minds and Flexible Schools," Saturday Review. XLIII (September, i960), 67-68, 90-92.

69. Nelson, Jack, Robert 0, Hahn, and Gertrude Robinson, "Team Teaching the New Approach," Journal of Teacher Education. XII (September, I96I), 380-382,

70. Nelson, J. L. and G, A. Robinson, "Teacher Education Through Team Teaching," School and Society. XCI (December, 1963), W9-410.

71. Ninnicht, Glendon P., "A Second Look at Team Teaching," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin. XLVI (December^ 1962),6^-69.

72. Norton, Monte S., "Approaches to Team Teaching," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin. XLIV (October, i960), 89-92.

73. Ohm, Robert D.f "Toward A Rationale for Team Teaching," Administrators Notebook. IX (March, 1961), 1-4.

7^t Peterson, Carl H,, Effective Team Teachingt The Easton Area High School Program. New York, Parker Publishing Company, 1966.

75. , "Team Teaching in the High School," Education. LXXXV (February, 1965), 342-3^7.

76. Pitruzzello, Philip R.f "A Report on Team Teaching," Clearing House. XXXVI (February, 1962), 333-336.

77. Polos, Nicholas C,, "Team Teachings Past, Present, and Future," Clearing House. XXXIX (April, 1965), 456-

1

78. Reddin, W, J., "How To Change Things," Executive Magazine. I (June, 1969), 22-26.

79* Rogers, Carl R,, "The Necessary and Sufficient Con-ditions of Therapeutic Personality Change," Journal of Consulting Psychology, XXI (1957), 95-103.

80. Rokeach, Milton, "The Nature and Meaning of Dogmatism," Psychological Review. LXI (May, 1954), 194-264.

81 • . The Open and Closed Mind. New York, Basic Books, i960.

21

82. Schmuck, Richard A., Philip J. Runkel, and Daniel Langmeyer, "Improving Organizational Problem Solving m a School Faculty," The Journal of Applied Be-havioral Science. V (December, I969J, 455-482.

83* Scutz, W. C., "What Makes Groups Productive?" Human Relations. VIII (November, 1955), 429-465.

84. Shaplin, Judson T., "Cooperative Teachingi Definitions and Organizational Analysis," Education Digest. XXX (April, 1965), 25-28.

85. — . and Henry F. Olds, Jr. editors, yearn Teaching. New York, Harper and Row, 1964.

86. Shawyer, 0. E., "Team Teachingi How Successful Is It?" Clearing House. XLIII (September, 1968), 21-26.

87. Sherif, Muzafer, Intergroup Relations and Leadershipi Approaches and Research in Industrial. Ethnic. Cultural and Political Areas. New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962.

88. Sundberg, Norman D. and Leona E. Tyler, Clinical Psychology} An Introduction to Research and Practice, New York, Meredith Publishing Company, 19327

89. "Symposium Using Team Teaching to Individualize Instruction," Journal of Secondarv Education. XXXVI (November, 1961), 414-446.

90. "Team Teaching: Proceed with Caution," Editorial, Clearing House. XXXIX (January, 1965), 315.

9!. Trump, J. Lloyd, "What Is Team Teaching?". Education. LXXXV (February, 1965), 327-332. ~

9 2 * —jr-rs—r—ktt- a n d D o r s e y Baynham, Focus on Change t Guide to Better Schools. Chicago, Rand McNally, 1961.

93. Vacchiano, R. B., p S. Strauss, and D. C. Scheffman, ^Personality Correlates of Dogmatism," Journal of 1968)^83-85^ C l i n i c a^ Psvchologv- XXXII (February,

94. Verett, Gary D., "The Effect of a Summer Group Counseling Instituteôn Selected Attitudes and Personality Characteristics of Junior College Counselors," un-M«v,+^Smed do°ôral dissertation, Department of Education, North Texas State University, Denton, Texas, 1970.

22

95. Walker, B. S. and D, P. Little, "Factor Analysis of the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory," Journal of Counseling Psychology.- XVI (November, 1969) , 516-521.

96. Wayne, Dora, "School Nursing and Team Teaching," Nursing Outlook. XVII (July, 1969) , 37,

97. Weiss, Thomas M. and Mary Scott Morris, "A Critique of the Team Approach," Education Forum. XXIV (January, i 9 6 0 ) , 107-108.

98. Wigderson, Harry I., "Team Teaching in American Education," Education. LXXXV (February, 1965) , 323-326.

99. Woolbridge, James H. and Frank E. Mayer, "Building for Team Teaching," Ohio Schools. XL (May, 1962) , 15.

100. Zagona, S, V. and L. A, Zurcher, "Notes on the Relia-bility and Validity of the Dogmatism Scale," Psycholog-ical Reports. XVI (June, 1965) , 1234-1236.

CHAPTER II

• REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

In the late 1950's educators introduced the concept of

team teaching which, consequently, has become one of the

most popular innovations in American education. With his-

torical threads dating back to the monitorial systems and

non-graded classes of several generations ago, such a con-

cept is new only in the expectations and techniques employed

by those who support it today. It is presently portrayed as

an answer to critical shortages in personnel and facilities,

as the way to reward teaching excellence and encourage

specialization, and as the means of bringing needed flexi-

bility into scheduling, student grouping, and into the use

of resources ( 8 , 19, 15, 3^, **0, 50, 61, 70, 8 3 ) .

Not all educators are equally impressed with the

potentiality of team teaching to solve serious educational

problems. In fact, the list of problems involved in the

team approach seems prohibitive enough to cause many observers

to caution against the "bandwagon syndrome" which characterized

early uncritical acceptance of the new approach (8, 28, 29,

59 , 6 5 ) , Interestingly, most of the difficulties anticipated

23

2k

in using the team approach to teaching center about the

personality adjustments and problems in interpersonal relations

among team members. If teams are not organized on a rigid

hierarchical basis or imposed under administrative edict,

approaches solidly condemned by many observers, the members

of the team will undoubtedly interact professionally and

interpersonally (5» 7̂ » 79). Such encounters offer limitless

opportunities for growth and negative reaction alike. Much

of the literature on team teaching is devoted to charting the

problems of team members relations.

Kelly (79) points to the threatening aspects of team

teaching which exposes professionals to an unusual amount

of peer group analysis and "strikes at the very core" of a

teacher's security, Anderson (5), Shaplin (128), Gilchrist

(65), Drummond (50)» and Weiss and Morris (146) argue that the

frequency and intensity of contact among team members makes

it impossible for inflexible, authoritarian, or status-conscious

persons, or individuals with serious personality disorders,

to function within the context of a teaching team. Hoppach

(7^) points out the problem of confused role identities and

difficulties in assuming leadership roles among team.members,

Brownell (27) discusses the inhibitions which team teaching

imposes on independent, creative personalities, and concludes

that teachers who can function in a team setting are more

rare than generally assumed. Whatever their specific

criticism of the team approach, educators seem to agree that

25

the most important factor in the success or failure of team

teaching is the personality of the team member and the manner

in which team members relate to one another (21, 19» 60,

6 1 ) .

The Personal Qualities of Effective '

Team Members

The personality characteristics most often indicative

of potential success in a team teacher are those which could

be expected to enhance good group relations. Heller (69)

stresses the need for pliability, flexibility, compatability,

communicativeness, ego-strength, and creativity. Aden (l)

urges that team members be extroverted and enthusiastic.

In his study of personality factors in high and low rated

team teachers, Cunningham noted that high rated team teachers

scored highest on cooperativeness, emotional stability,

aggressiveness, enthusiasm, and conscientiousness (37).

Similar characteristics were also cited by Fea (55),

Cunningham (37), Mitchell (103), Clement (33), and Heller

and Belford (70).

Unfortunately, as Heather (68) notes in his recent review

of available research on team teaching, in spite of the

importance of teachers' attitudes and personality character-

istics to the success of team activities, relatively few

studies of these factors have emerged. "Equally remarkable,"

continues Heather, "is the superficial nature of these studies."

Indeed, most of the above cited judgments about the positive

and negative characteristics of team members have been based

26

upon little more than casual observations and projections.

At the same time, there have "been persistent calls for

additional empirical research on the psychological dynamics

at work in the team teaching process (50, 59» 64, 74, 116).

The Measurement of Change

Any number of instruments are available to measure the

element of change in individuals and groups resulting from

their involvement in various group processes.

Rokeach (122), in the mid-1950s, formulated the concept

of dogmatism to replace earlier and more limited concepts }

of authoritarianism. Rokeach perceived dogmatism in relation

to three highly related and converging sets of variables,

including closed cognitive systems, authoritarianism, and

intolerance. While these variables, as Rokeach originally

pointed out, can develop individually and without reference

to any particular group experience, they more readily result

from group-shared or institutionally induced behavior.

Rokeach embodied the products of his research into a scale

designed to measure the cognitive correlates of general

authoritarianism, the Dogmatism Scale. The author of the

scale called for its application to a broad spectrum of

human experiences which might give evidence of the dynamics

involved in the development of the dogmatic personality.

In 1965. Zagona and Zurcher (148) reviewed the collected

data on the reliability and validity of the RDS and compared

27

test-retest reliability coefficients from their own ex-

periments with those in Rokeach's original study. Zagona

and Zurcher compared the behavior of two extreme groups,

including thirty high and thirty low dogmatics selected from

among 517 freshmen and sophomore psychology students in

separate conference sections. The students were examined over

an entire semester, with the re-testing coming fifteen weeks

after the initial testing and following a series of normal

and experimental classroom experiences. In addition to the

conclusion that the construct of dogmatism is supported by

validity data resulting from their own experimental studies

of individual behavior and group processes, Zagona and Zurcher

noted several very important characteristics of dogmatic

persons operating within groups. High dogmatics are more

actively concerned with the problem of leader selection, that

is they are more leader-follower oriented} their need for

structure overshadows any need for expression of spontaneity

or creativity? they are more vulnerable to challenges by

authority figures, and become insecure, wavering, and less

attached to the group when contradicted by group leaders.

How dogmatic personalities function in the group context, as

a member of a teaching team, for example, is a legitimate and

worthwhile subject for further experimentation.

Vacchiano, Strauss, and Scheffman (142) more recently

employed several diverse personality instruments to test the

reliability of the RDS in defining personality traits commonly

28

associated with dogmatic and non-dogmatic internal belief

structures. The DS, the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule.

the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire Form A, the

Tennessee Self-Concept Scale. and the Mack V Scale were

administered to fifty-three male and twenty-nine female

college students. The variety of tests, were considered

necessary to measure different approaches to concepts of

personality.

The results of the various tests confirmed that a logical

and relatively consistent dogmatic personality pattern exists

which substantiates Rokeach's formula of internal belief

structures. According to these tests, a dogmatic subject

lacks self esteem, is non-commital and defensive, is dis-t

contented with himself and his situation, is tradition-

oriented with regard to new ideas, needs support from others

while exhibiting an intolerance for understanding the feelings

and motives of others. By implication, the dogmatic person-

ality will experience immense difficulty in the maintenance

of satisfying interpersonal relationships within a group,*

will respond more easily to a highly structured, authoritarian

group, and will react strongly to proposed changes in group

orientation.

The Barrett-Lermard Relationshi-n Inventory (RI) was

first developed to measure four qualities, or dimensions, in

the interpersonal relations between therapists and their

clients} that is empathic understanding, congruence, level

of regard, and unconditionality of regard. The theoretical

29

foundations and basic research and development of the inventory

took place in the early 1960s, and has recently undergone

several revisions by the author himself (l4). In this most

recent revision, Barrett-Lennard subjected the RI to a large

number of university students in introductory psychology

courses, and to graduate teachers in introductory counseling

courses; he then injected the results of his original client-

therapist tests, included the results of Hollenbeck's

father-mother descriptions, and, finally applied an item

analysis to all four relationship inventory scales. The

final result was a substantial modification and revision of

the items in the inventory with a view to making the in-

strument a more sensitive receiver of experimental, data and

a more precise analysis of the dimensions of interpersonal

relationships. With the recent revisions, the inventory is

a much more facile instrument in the study of group behavior

and individual relationships within groups.

Walker and Little (1*44) used the RI with 150 under-

graduate students enrolled in a first-year psychology course,

including ninety-eight males and fifty-two females. Their

purpose was to subject the RI to factor analysis of the item

intercorrelations to see if any significant homogeneous

factors emerged. Three such factors were detected, "non-

evaluative acceptance," "psychological insight," and

"likability," In several important respects, these factors

validated the original dimensions of relationships set forth

in the RI, while in still other areas the factor analysis

30

showed some artificiality in the Inventory's categories.

What is most significant for the study of group processes

is its insistance upon a factor analysis approach to under-

standing the variance apparent in the actual behavior of

individuals in groups and that shown by the general dimensions

measured by the RI.

^he Semantic Differential has also been shown to be an

effective device for measuring the dimensions of attitudes,

values, and personality (13*0. Husek and Wittrock (75) used

the SD on 259 students in introductory educational psychology

courses to measure the dimensionality of the attitudes of the

students toward their teachers in regard to such stated

qualities as restraint, tenacity, predictability, stability,

and general aptitude. The variances in meaning of these

qualities among the students is given as a caution in hypo-

thesizing about individuals who have been studied individually

and in group situations.

The Preparation of Team Members

Accepting the principle that team teaching cannot succeed

where proper interpersonal relations are not established

beforehand, a number of educators have called for some' type

of preparatory orientation of team members prior to launching

a cooperative venture (19, 20, 43, 50, 70, 71, 139). Morlan

(104) urges that the orientation process include some type

group experience which allows sufficient member interaction

to reveal potential problems and opportunities for member

31

relations, Kramer (83) noted that twenty-nine team members

benefited greatly through experimentation in a variety of

roles, models, and identities in the planning sessions con-

ducted prior to the team teaching project. Heller (71) and

Georgiades (6k) call for preparatory workshops where team

members can experience and be taught to employ the principles

of group dynamics as an integral part of the team teaching

effort. Beggs (19) urges that inservice training workshops,

including group conferences, staff visitation, tape sessions,

and a variety of other means be employed to allow maximum

opportunity for team members to discuss their feelings,

attitudes, and special problems in relating to other members

of the team. /

Nursing educators were among the first to employ and to

evaluate broadly team teaching techniques (67, 1^5). They

were also among the first to realize the critical role played

by the teacher's role awareness, identity, personality

characteristics, and effectiveness in relating to others in

successful team teaching. Mauksch (98) has observed the

bureaucratic structure of the nursing world and the peculiar

features in the profession which make nurses especially

security conscious, thus stiffling initiative and making

free and open exchange difficult. Allen (3) has attempted

to overcome these inhibitions to interaction by conducting

workshops to improve communications among nursing staff and

instructors. Harty (67)1 in a study of eight teaching teams

32

on a single hospital staff, noted the jockeying for status

and position, problems in identity, and personal insecurity

among team members. Harty urges maximum use of training

sessions to break down the problems of peer relationships,

job status, and communications before attempting cooperative

teaching.

The training and preparation of instructors for team

teaching will be most effective where it is devoted to

activities which enhance group functioning, social sensitivity,

and skills in communications. Potential team members, says

Geitgey, "Must have knowledge of the experience in group

dynamics, since such preparation increases self insight,

ability to function in groups, communication skills, and

willingness to accept others" (63, p. 68). The studies of

Layton (85) in assessing student reaction to the attitudes

of nursing instructors tend to corroborate the direct

relationship between an instructor's effectiveness and his

skills in interpersonal relationships.

The Emergence of Group Dynamics

The search for more adequate means of examining attitudes,

self-concepts, and capacities for interaction in potential

team teachers has led to renewed interest in the dynamics of

the group process. Cartwright (30) suggests that change in

individuals and in total group functioning may be enhanced

through the knowledge and use of the scientifically-based

principles of group dynamics.

33

In the late 1930's, behavioral scientists began to employ

the techniques of empirical science, including observation,

quantification, measurement, and experimentation, in an

effort to analyze the phenomena present in group relations.

In the attempt to formulate a coherent view of the nature

of group life, a number of psychologists, including Freud,

Redl, Scheidlinger, Slavson, Moreno, Bion, and Bach postulated

numerous theories related to individual behavior in group con-

text. Concepts of leadership, status communication, group

atmosphere, social norms, and inter-group relations were in-

troduced in these formative stages of group dynamics theory.

Meanwhile, the growth of the social sciences, parallelled

by the ascendancy of new theories of education which stressed

the role of the teacher as a group leader responsible for

stimulating motivation, participation, and interaction,

worked to intensify interest in the study of groups (31).

At the same time, leaders in the training of professionals

in business management developed an appreciation for the

strategic role of group dynamics in their enterprises.

Methodological advances over the past three decades

have strengthened the claims of group dynamics as a viable

field of inquiry for those interested in the interaction of

individuals in group situations. Experimental psychologists

have invented techniques for conducting experiments on

individual behavior within group situations. The study of

social interaction through controlled observation has

34

enabled scientists to examine closely behavioral patterns,

group properties, overt interactions, and to reduce these

phenomena to classifiable and measurable quantitative data

of high reliability. Especially significant has been the

employment of sociometric techniques to measure such features

of groups as social position, patterns of friendship, and

sub-group formation. As a field of inquiry dedicated to

advancing knowledge about the nature of groups, group

dynamics continues to expand in usefulness and application

to a variety of research areas.

In examining aspects of group dynamics most relevant

to the training and orientation of team teachers, several

broad areas must be considered. In the first place, what

indications are there that group activities or experiences

can seriously affect the attitudes or behavior of individuals

within the group? Can limited group involvement effect

change in personality or in an individual's ability to re-

late to others? Just as important is the question, "What

possible consequences can interaction within groups have on

the selection or achievement of goals either by individuals

within the groups or the group acting as a team?" Satis-

factory answers to these inquiries should provide a more

reasonable rationale for encouraging the use of group

35

dynamics principles and techniques in the preparation and

selection of teaching teams.

One of the first principles of any theory of group

dynamics is the assumption that "the behavior, attitudes,

beliefs, and values of the individual are all firmly grounded

in the groups to which he belongs" (30, p, 38?). Most of

those characteristics normally considered to belong to the

individual, aggressiveness, cooperativeness, self-confidence,

energy, productivity, prejudices, and other similar traits,

are properties of groups to which the individual relates.

Consequently, attempts to change individual behavior or

patterns of relating to others must take cognizance of the

individual's group attachments. The group functions in this

respect as the formative influence in the adoption of

character traits, or goals, and can function equally as an

agent of change in these same areas.

Cartwright (30) postulates at least five principles

governing the functioning of a group as a medium of change.

First, if the group is to be used effectively as a medium

of change, the people who are to be changed and those who

expect to exert influence for change must have a strong

sense of belonging to the same group. Thus, a "we-feeling,"

or sense of participatory involvement, more than significant

supervisory leadership is critical to the effect of any

group experience on its members. Secondly, effective groups

exert maximum attraction to their members. Attractive groups,

36

to which subjects desire belonging intensely, assure greater

liklihood of conformity among members. Thirdly, to change

attitudes, values, and behavior, the more relevant these are

to the basis of attraction to the group, the greater the in-

fluence that the group can exert upon them. At the same

time, the greater the prestige of a group member in the eyes

of other members, the greater influence he can exert on the

group. Finally, the pressure for conformity in groups is

so intense, that efforts to change individuals or sub-parts

of a group which, if successful, would have the result of

making them deviate from the norms of the group, will en-

counter strong resistance. These principles are borne out

in the relevant literature on group activities of the past

two decades, and they provide legitimate assumptions for the

structuring of group experiences for any purposes.

The effect of a person's perception of his valuation

by group members upon his attraction to the group was the

subject of a study by Jackson (77). Jackson tested seventy-

two members of the staff of a midwestern child welfare agency,

mostly professional social workers, as to their ability to

sense evaluative cues from members of groups to which they

belonged, and as to the effect the resulting perception of

"social worth" had on the individuals' attraction to that

group. He found that the communication to members of signs

that they are valued or devalued does, indeed, act on their

attraction to membership, and that this in turn regulates

37

the degree to which they behave in accordance with role ex-

pectations concerning compliance and contribution, which,

again, determines the position allocated to them in the

prestige hierarchy of the group,

Lott and Lott (9*0# using sociometric techniques among

groups of elementary school children, confirmed the suggestion

that positive attitudes toward persons within the group can

be formed by experiencing recognition and reward in their

presence. Group attraction and group cohesiveness alike

depends significantly upon the evidence given to individuals

within the group of their worth and acceptance.

Early studies of group dynamics focused on the power

of groups to directly effect change in attitudes of group

members. Asch (9) found that a "majority effect" worked

within groups whereby individuals under the proper stimulus,

could be made to accept majority opinions of the group even

where those opinions were seen to be in a direction contrary

to fact.

Groups can, in fact, have a significant effect on the

volume and direction of hostility expressed by group members.

Pepitone and Reichling (112) studied the effect of gro.up

cohesiveness upon the intensity and orientation of hostile

feelings among individuals within groups, and concluded that

highly cohesive groups were considerably less restrained

when under attack than low cohesive groups. "The greater

the cohesiveness of a group," they contend, "the greater the

3 8

power of that group to bring about change in its members."

In his studies, Schaehter (124) found that the cohesiveness

of a group can have a pronounced effect on group productivity

and success by the influence for achievement the group renders

over its individual members.

More recently, Mascovic and Zavalloni (97) have in-

vestigated the relevance of polarization to the intellectual

functioning of groups, and have concluded that the easy

assumption that groups act to moderate judgments is not

necessarily accurate. These investigators demonstrated the

effects of groups on the attitudinal development of members

and specifically on the factors of polarization and rating

extremity in the process of judgment. The truth is, they

contend, that groups may or may not moderate hostile atti-

tudes; in fact, polarization and rating extremity might be

encouraged and indeed, be normative for individuals in a

particular group. "Polarization and rating extremity are

fundamental properties of the attitudinal and judgmental

processes in a social interaction situation," Society, and

the groups within it, can, it seems, radicalize ideas as

well as moderate them. The study of Doise (49) confirms

the hypothesis that the opinion of a group may be more

extreme than the average of the opinions of the individual

members of the group.

Testing the hypothesis that a group member's desire for

group achievement is analogous to his own personal need for

39

achievement, Zander and Meadow (150) asked members of groups

to rate their own and their group's success/failure. They

also closely checked shifts in individual and group aspirations

as related to rewards/costs "based upon group performance.

They found that members of strong groups (where members are

attractive to each other and have a perception of probable

success) have a stronger desire for achievement of group

success and will prefer tasks of intermediate difficulty.

Members who receive no information about the performance of

their group will assume success and choose more difficult

tasks. Interestingly, members did not consider group failure/

success to be an indication of their own personal competence,

that is, when a group failed, members rate the group per-

formance lower than their own, and group performance was not

taken by individual members as a reflection of their own

competence. In a related study, Schachter (12̂ -) found that

the cohesiveness of a group can have a pronounced effect upon

the productivity of the group by the influence for achievement

which the group renders over its members.

The Utilization of Group Dynamics In Leadership Training Workshops

Research conducted over the last two decades indicates

that personality and attitudinal characteristics of team

teachers are critical in determining the success of team

teaching operations. At the same time, it has been shown

that group dynamics principles and techniques can be effective

40

in understanding and shaping those characteristics considered

critical to effective team teaching. It is, therefore,

reasonable to assume that in the selection and preparation

of potential members of team teaching units, attention should

be given to the possibility of employing group training

methods which utilize group dynamics principles and techniques.

The limits imposed on the leadership role by the es-

tablished social norms of the group were studied by Merei

(101). In an attempt to discover the effects of leadership

changes on the persistency of group norms, Merei allowed a

number of children's groups to interact until a "tradition"

was firmly established for each, including relations, rituals,

jargon, and the like. New, older, and more experienced

leaders were then thrust into the groups with the result

that the groups absorbed the intruders and imposed the

previously set traditions on them. Some new leaders were

completely absorbed, some were assimilated as leaders, and

a few succeeded in modifying somewhat the group's tradition,

but only after first becoming a member and accepting the group

norms. Merei's studies indicate that potential leaders must

show willingness to abide by the established norms as .they

strive toward the upper levels of the group structure. The

work of Preston and Heintz (119) on the character of group

leadership tend to support the conclusion that participatory

leaders are more likely to effect some changes in group

attitudes and norms than supervisory leaders. Group members

41

resist challenges to their individual and collective judgements

from those leaders who are not assimilated into the group but

who stand apart in some supervisory capacity. Lewin, Lippitt,

and White (88) studied the effect of manipulating leadership

among children's groups in something of the same fashion as

Merei, but stressed the significant shifts in individual

member behavior rather than the impact of the group on the

leaders, Both studies, however, demonstrate that effective

leadership can operate and influence group behavior only to

the extent that the leaders assimilate group norms and

establish identity with the values and goals of the group

they wish to lead.

The influence of group norms over individual .behavior

has been studied at length by Sherif (130, 131, 132). Con-

formity to one's group norms can be shown to be an inevitable

functional consequence of one's belongingness in the group.

Being a part of the group, identifying oneself with a group

and having a definite status within it involves necessarily

assimilating the values and norms of the group to the point

that, as Sherif suggests, these entities become "constituent

parts of one's ego." The group can act as a repressive,

coercive agent on individual members, but can, at the same

time, act as the source of status, prestige, occupational

satisfaction, sexual gratification, approval, and provide

numerous other tension reducing or rewarding satisfactions.

These differential effects of the group experiences result

k2

from the structural properties of the group, group goals, and,

of course, the internal psychological and external situational

factors operative within and on each of the individuals within

the group. Social norms are formed in group situations and

subsequently serve as standards for the individual's per-

ceptions and judgments outside and beyond the group. Once

these reference group relations are established, Sherif

suggests, they form a singularly forceful influence on the

total behavior and attitudinal responses of the individual,

modifying, deflecting, and even transforming behavioral

tendencies,

A recent study by Friedlander (60) concentrated on the

role of prelaboratory trust as a predictor of eventual group

accomplishment. Beginning with the assumption that the

formation of trust and the acceptance of self and others, the

reduction of fear and the consequent growth of confidence

are interrelated factors which facilitate individual and

group development, Friedlander projected that it would be

possible to chart the extent to which such intragroup trust

is requisite to group accomplishment. Two sets of workgroups

were studied over a period of time, one of which interacted

only in its usual organizational environment while the other

participated in additional laboratory training. By comparing

the two sets of groups periodically by use of the Group Be-

havior Inventory. Friedlander was able to focus on the differing

impact on later-group accomplishments of groups initially high

43

or low in trust. He could also note the impact of laboratory

training upon the relationship between group trust and other

dimensions. Friedlander's groups employed problem-solving

activities involving numerous interpersonal and intragroup

processes.

Friedlander found that trust acts as a catalyst in com-

bination with laboratory training to foster group competence,

especially where the level of trust was considerable prior

to the laboratory experience. Significantly, he found that

the level of trust "is a fairly enduring organismic state

which does not change easily during short-term training"

(60, p. 399). Pre-training work with the members of the

group can enhance, but not provide, intragroup trust. As

an isolated experience, laboratory training is ineffective;

as an integral part of an on-going, developmental experience

for the group, the training can facilitate trust and enhance

group performance. Thus, Friedlander*s work provides a

cautious encouragement to proceed with the use of group

workshop training models as a means of increasing individual

efficiency and group accomplishment. He has also under-

scored the essentiality of a measure of intragroup tj?ust as

a basic prerequisite to any worthwhile group attainment.

The importance of a climate of trust, characterized

by the acknowledged right of the individual to be himself,

has been shown to be critical to the smooth and productive

functioning of groups. Bartlett (l?) applied behavioral

science "theories "to business management problems and,

through the use of techniques of group activities, increased

efficiency by changing behavior patterns among executives

and workmen at a large corporation, Bartlett's goal was to

reduce the mistrust and antagonism created by the "win-

loose framework" of implied threats and blame-fixing which

he saw to be thwarting initiative and inhibiting creativity

in a rigid hierarchical executive framework. His goal was

to create an open, empathic climate where employees felt

free to grow at their own pace and in their own directions.

Using non-directive group interviews, caselets, reading,

problem-solving activities, role playing, and other special

exercises, Bartlett encouraged group members to express

themselves freely, to take independent action, to admit

mistakes without fear of retribution, and to practice the

use of communicative abilities generally. Positively, the

exercises gave each person opportunity to work with sub-

ordinates, peers,and superiors in a framework of acceptance

and equality. Bartlett's project met every standard of

increased efficiency, improvement in productivity, greatly

reduced absenteeism, and enhanced morale among employees.

The study validated the principle that individuals resent

the regimentation imposed by a technological environment

which destroys freedom and initiative. Men do not need or

desire to be controlled and directed in work, but rather

exhibit creativity most when encouraged to be themselves

4 5

in a climate of trust where their mistakes are as acceptable

as their positive accomplishments. Wholesome group relations,

where ideas and attitudes can be freely exchanged without

fear of retribution, have been shown to be an essential

feature of increasing efficiency.

Another study aimed at the improvement of organizational

functioning through the use of group techniques was that of

Schmuck, Runkel, and Langmeyer (125). These three educational

psychologists collaborated in a project to improve organi-

zational problem solving in a junior high school faculty.

Their study was designed to learn whether improved organi-

zational functioning could be produced in a faculty "by

integrating group training in communications and problem

solving with the normal business of the school. A week-

long workshop in August, involving faculty and staff in a

variety of group experiences, primarily devoted to task-

oriented activities, provided the basis of the project's

operations, followed by periodic reevaluations in November

and again in February. The project pointed more toward

organizational development than personal change, but the

training throughout stressed the obvious fact that functions

within organizations depend upon interpersonal interactions

and that "heightening abilities for organizational problem

solving must commence with new norms for interpersonal openness

and helpfulness.M The group exercises were designed to in-

crease awareness of both interpersonal interactions and

organizational processes, to develop communicative abilities

46

and skills in understanding and describing other's behavior,

and to enhance skills in confronting and solving real prob-

lems thwarting the organizational functioning of the school.

Three problems which seemed to inhibit organizational

functioning repeatedly emerged in the workshop and over the

months that followed. First, there was the problem of

insufficient role clarity, especially in the roles of top

administrative officials and service personnel. Secondly,

members of the faculty failed to draw upon staff resources

to enhance their own preparation. Finally, there was the

problem of low staff involvement and low participation at

meetings of committees, of subject matter areas, and of the

full faculty. In the workshop, groups were set t-o work

identifying, analyzing, and seeking solutions to these

problems. By rotating the size and membership of the groups,

maximum interaction among the whole faculty and staff was

encouraged, resulting in an increase in the network of

workable relationships on the staff, and a general increase

in the cohesiveness of the faculty. Success was noted in

observable organizational change, verbally expressed

attitudes about leaders and staff meeting, kinds of inno-

vations in problem solving reported, and in a variety of

changes within the faculty,

Schmuck, Runkel and Langmeyer's study is an excellent

example of the effectiveness of group processes in the

improvement of group functioning in general and of cooperation

^7

Bidwell (23) attempted to demonstrate the same virtues

of group dynamics in the preparation of preservice teachers

in human relations skills. Bidwell focused her study on a

program designed to develop self-understanding and to im-

prove the ability of teachers to interact with others more

positively and constructively. Dividing some 4-20 preservice

teachers into groups using multiple instructional patterns,

Bidwell sought to show that those taught by dyadic programmed

instruction would show more improvement in human relations

skills than those taught by other methods. She defined those

skills in terms of participants* ability to show empathic

understanding, congruence, level of regard, unconditionality

of regard, and relational ability. While Bidwell actually t

found no one instructional pattern for teaching human relations

skills more effective than any other, she did show how

valuable preservice training workshops can be in revealing

and enhancing such skills generally.

Summary

Considering the importance of careful selection and

preparation in interpersonal relations to the effectiveness

of members of teaching teams, it is surprising that so little

research is available on the orientation process for team

teachers. Specific studies on team teaching over the past

two decades indicate that personality and attitudinal

characterisitics are critical in determining the success

of team teaching operations. The search for principles and

k 8

techniques for discovering the characteristics, and measuring

their effect on others in a group situation, is a worthwhile

research goal.

At the same time, it has been shown that group dynamics

studies can effectively aid in understanding and shaping

those characteristics considered critical to effective team

teaching. Groups can impose norms and values, reveal

strengths and weaknesses in communicative skills, discover

and enhance group leadership abilities, provide a climate

of acceptance where hostile or aggressive feelings can be

channeled or directed toward acceptable goals, or encourage

cooperativeness in mutually beneficial problem-solving

activities.

Given the viability of group activities for preparing

team teachers to interrelate more constructively with staff

and students, the question arises as to the method of group

operations most suitable to such an activity. Examples are

included of faculty and staff workshops, most involving

large numbers of individuals, multiple groups, and great

variety among group members in interests and responsibilities.

The objective planned for seems the determinative element

in deciding the structure of the group experience. It is,

therefore, reasonable to assume that a training workshop

involving a number of highly selective group goals could

prove worthwhile in enhancing the capacities for interaction

and the climate of trust, and hence the performance, of

potential team members.


1. Aden, R. C.f "Team Teaching at North Texas State University, 1960-1961," Peabody Journal of Education, XXXIX (March, 1962), 283-28?.

2. "Administrative Developments, Discussion Groups and Team Teaching," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin7~XLVI ('0ctober. 1962). 53,

3. Allen, Virginia 0., "Improving Communications," Nursing Outlook. X (May, 1962), 523.

4. "An Administrator's Guide to Team Teaching," Educational Executive Overview. I (April, 1963), 5^-55,

5. Anderson, Robert H., "Team Teaching," National Education Association Journal. L (March, 1961), 52-55.

6. Anderson, Sharon Jane, "Changes in Attitudes, Personality, and Effectiveness of Counselor Trainees in Counseling Practicums," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, North Texas State University, Denton, Texas, 1968.

7. Anderson, James F., "The Relationship Between Leader-ship Training in Group Dynamics and the Development of Groups Among Disadvantaged Youth," unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, 1968.

8. Arnold, W, E,, "Is Team Teaching the Answer?" School and Society. XCI (December, 1963), 407-409.

9. Asch, S, E„, "Effects of Group Pressure Upon the Modification and Distortion of Judgments," Groups. Leadership, and Men, edited by H. Guetzkow, Pittsburgh, Carnegie Press, 1951.

10* » "Studies in the Principles of Judgments and Attitudes: II. Determination of Judgments by Ego Standards," Journal of Social Psychology. XII (November. 19^0), 433-^557

50

11. Axelrod, Joseph, "Group Dynamics, Non-Directive Therapy, and College Teaching," Journal of Higher Education, XXVI (April, 1955), 200-207,

12. Back, Kurt,"The Exertion of Influence Through Social Communication," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. XLV (January, 1951), 9-24.

13. Barr, A, S, and R, E. Jones, "The Measurement and Pre-diction of Teacher Efficiency," Review of Educational Research. XXVIII (June, 1958), 258^255.~ "

14. Barrett-Lennard, G. T., "The Relationship Inventoryi Revision Process," paper delivered at the 1963 Annual Conference of the British Psychological Society, Australian Branch.

!5. t , Technical Note on the 64-Item Revision of the Relationship Inventory. Ontario, Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, 1969.

16-. and L. N. Jewell, "A Selection of Reported Studies Using the Relationship Inventory," unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Ontario, 1966.

17. Bartlett, Alton, "Changing Behavior as a Means to In-creased Efficiency," Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. Ill (Spring, 1967), 381-401.

18. Becker, Harry A., "Team Teaching," Instructor. LXXI (June, 1962), 43-45.

\

19. Beggs, David^W. editor, Team Teaching: Bold New Venture. Indianapolis, Unified College Press, 1964.

2 0• — and Edward G. Buffie, "The Pitfalls and Promise of Large Group Instruction," American School Board Journal. CXLVIII (May, 1964), 21-22.

21. Bennett, Margaret E., Guidance and Counseling in Groups. New York, McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc., 19^3,

22. Berg, Robert C, and James A. Johnson, Group Counseling> 4 Sourcebook of Theory and Practice. Fort Worth, Texas, American Continental Publishing Company, Inc., 1971.

23. Bidwell, Wilma Walker, "A Study of Openness As A Factor m the Human Relations Training of Pre-Service Teachers," unpublished doctoral dxssertation, Ohio State University.-Columbus, Ohio, 1966.

51

24. Borg, Walter R., "Research on Team Teachingi Study of Human Interaction Variables in Successful and Un-successful Teacher Teams," Weber School District Report, Ogden, Utah, I (October, 1 9 6 6 ) , reported by the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education.

25. , "Teacher Effectiveness in Team Teaching," Journal of Experimental Education. XXXV (September, 1967), 65-70.

26. Brown, Charles I., "Make It A Team Teaching Venture," Clearing House. XXXVII (February, 1 9 6 3 ) , 340-342.

27. Brownell, John A. and Harris A, Taylor, "Theoretical Perspectives for Teaching Teams," Phi Delta Kappan. XLIII (June, 1 9 6 2 ) , 150-157.

28. Bush, Robert N,, "Editoriali A Searching Appraisal of New Developments," Journal of Secondary Education, XXXVII (October, 1 9 6 2 ) , 322.

29. Carlin, Philip M., "A Current Appraisal of Team Teaching," Education. LXXXV (February, 1 9 6 5 ) , 348-353,

30* Cartwright, Dorwin, "Achieving Change in Peoples Some Applications of Group Dynamics Theory," Human Rela-tions, i v ( 1 9 5 1 ) , 3 8 1 - 3 9 2 .

31« ____ and Alvin Zander, Group Dynamicst Research and Theory. New York, Harper and Row, 1 9 6 8 .

32. Chamberlin, Leslie J., Team Teachingt Organization and Administration. Columbia, Missouri, C. E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1 9 6 9 .

33. Clement, Stanley L., "More Time for Teaching," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin. XLVI (December, 1 9 6 2 ) , 5 4 - 5 9 .

3^. Corrigan, Dean and Robert Hynes, "What Have We Learned from Team Teaching?" Social Education. XXVIII ,(Auril. 1964), 205-208.

35. Coyne, Lolafaye and Philip S. Holzman, "Three Equivalent Forms of a Semantic Differential Inventory," Educational

Psychological Measurement. XXVI (Autumn, 1966), 665-674.

36. Cromer, Lyla, Rheba de Tornyay, and Marion McDermott, "Learning to do Team Teaching," Nursing Outlook. XVIII (September, 1970), 44-45.

52

37. Cunningham, D. F., Effect of Background and Personality of Teachers on Teacher Teams. Houston, Bureau of Educational Research and Services, University of Houston, 1964,

3 8 . Cunningham, Luvern L., "Keys to Team Teaching," Overview. I (October, i 9 6 0 ) , 54-55,

39. , "Team Teachings Where Do We Stand?" Administrator's Notebook. VIII (April, I960), 1-4.

^0. , "Viewing Change in School Organi-zations," Administrator's Notebook, XI (September, 1962), 1-4.

41. Darling, D, W,, "Team Teachings Wisconsin Improvement Program," National Education Association Journal, LIV (May, 1965), 24-25.

42.. Davis, Harold S., How to Organize an Effective Team Teaching Program. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 1 9 6 6 ,

^3. > "Planning for Team Teaching," Education. LXXXV (February, 1 9 6 5 ) , 333-336.

44. , The Effect of Team Teaching on Teachers. Detroit, Wayne State University Press~i 1 9 6 2 .

45. Davis, 0. L., "Grouping for Instructions Some Per-spectives," Educational Forum. XXIV (January, i 9 6 0 ) , 209-216.

46. Dean, Steward E., "Team Teachings A Review," School Life. XLIV (September, 1 9 6 1 ) , 5 .

47. Dittes, J. E. and H. B. Gerard, "Effects of Different Conditions of Acceptance Upon Conformity to Group Norms," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psvchologv. LIII (April, 195ST. 100-107.

48. Dix, J. P., "Team Teaching Requires Team Spirit,"* School and Community. LXIX (November, 1 9 6 2 ) , 2 ? .

49. Doise, Willem, "Intergroup Relations and Polarizations of Individual and Collective Judgments," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. XII (June, I 9 6 9 T , 136-143.

50. Drummond, Harold D., "Team Teachings An Assessment," Educational Leadership. XIX (December, 1 9 6 1 ) , 1 6 0 .

53

51. Durrell, Donald 0., "Implementing and Evaluating Pupil-Team Learning Plans," Journal of Educational Sociology. XXXIV (April, 1961), 360-365.

52. Dymond, Rosalind F., "Personality and Empathy," Journal of Consulting Psychology. XIV (1950), 3^3-350.

53. Egner, Robert, "Group Dynamics and the Role of Authority in Higher Education," Journal of Educational Sociology, XXXI (December, 1957). 15^-157.

5*1. Elliott, Richard W.f "Team Teachings Effective In-Service Training," American School Board Journal. GXLIV (February, 1962) , 19.

55* Fea, H, R,, "Team Teachings Psychological Implications," Clearing House. XLIV (November, 1968) , 177-179.

56. Festinger, Leon, "Arousal and Reduction of Dissonance in Social Contexts," edited by Cartwright and Zander, Group Dynamicss Research and Theory. 125-136.

57. , J. Torrey, and B, Willerman, "Self-Evaluation as a Function of Attraction to the Group," Human Relations, II (195^)» 161-17^.

58. Ford, LeRoy H,, Jr. and Murray Meisels, "Social Desirability and the Semantic Differential," Educational and Psychological Measurement. XXV (Summer, 1965)1 ^65-^75.

59. Fraenkel, Jack and Richard E. Gross, "Team Teachings A Note of Caution Is In Order," National Education Association Journal. LVI (April, 1 9 6 7 ) , 1 6 - 1 7 .

60. Friedlander, Frank, "The Primacy of Trust As a Facilitator of Further Group Accomplishment," Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. VI (December, 1970),387-^00.

61. Gamhold, Willard J., "The Modern Teacher and New Media of Instruction," Education. LXXXII (October, 1962), 67-70.

62. Garrett, W, S., "Prediction of Academic Success in a School of Nursing," Personnel and Guidance Journal. XXXVIII (February,.1960), 500-503.

63. Geitgey, Doris A., "Some Thoughts on Team Teaching in Nursing Education," Nursing Outlook. X (October, 1967) , 66-68 .

54

64. Georgiades, W., J. R. Fraenkel, and. R, E, Gross, "Team Teaching," National Education Association Journal. LVI (April,"19^7), 14-17.

65# Gilchrist, Robert S,, "Promising Practices in Education," Phi Delta Kappan. XLI (March, i 9 6 0 ) , 269-274.

66. Grigsby, David A., "The Effects of Student Teaching Upon Attitudinal Characteristics Considered Basic for Effective Counselors," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, North Texas State University, Denton, Texas, 1970.

67. Harty, Margaret B,, "Team Teaching," Nursing Outlook. XI (January, 1963)» 59-61.

68. Heather, Glen, "Research in Team Teaching," Team Teaching, edited by Judson T. Shaplin, New York, Harper and Row, 1964.

69. Heller, Melvin P., "Qualities for Team Members," Team Teaching: Bold New Venture, edited by David W. Beggs, Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1968.

70. and Elizabeth Belford, "Hierarchy in Team Teaching," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin. XLVI (December^ 1962) , 59-64. .

71. and Imogene King, "Team Teachingt Values and Advantages," Nursing Outlook. XIII (October, 1965) , 50-51.

72. Hilgard, E. R., "Human Dimension in College Teaching," National Education Association Journal, LIV (September, 19S5), 53-45.

73. Hooper, Ned E., "The Training Process for Team Teaching," Journal of Teacher Education. XIV (June, 1963) , 177.

74. Hoppach, Ann, "Team Teaching: Form Without Substance," National Education Association Journal, L (April. 1961), 47-48. '

75* Husek, T. R, and M. C. Wittrock, "The Dimensions of Attitudes Toward Teachers as Measured by the Semantic Differential," Journal of Educational Psvchologv. LIII (October, 1962) , 209-213";

76. Inglis, C. R., "Group Dynamics! Boon or Bane?" Group Counseling8 A Source Book of Theory and Practice 1 edited by Robert C. Berg and James A. Johnson, Fort Worth, Texas, American Continental Publishing Company, Inc. 1971.

55

77. Jackson, J. M., "A Space for Conceptualizing Person-Group Relationships," Human Relations. XXI (1959) 3-15.

78. Johnson, Robert Henry and John J. Hunt, R& for Team Teaching. Minneapolis, Burgess Publishing Company, 1968.

79. Kelly, E. T,, "Why Teach Teaching Fails," Instructor. LXXVI (April, 196?)» 25-26.

80. Kemp, C. Gratton, Perspectives on the Group Process t A Foundation for Counseling with Groups. Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1970.

81. King, Arthur R,, Jr., "Planning for Team Teaching: The Human Considerations," California Journal of Secondary Education. XXXVII (October, 1962), 362-363.

82. Knowled, Malcom Shepherd, Introduction to Group Dynamics, New York, Association Press, 1965.

83. Kramer, Marlene, "Team Teaching Is More Than Team Planning," Nursing Outlook. XVI (July, 1968), 47-50.

84. Lambert, Philip, "Team Teaching for Today's World," Teachers College Record. LXIV (March, 1963)1 44-50.

85. Layton, Sister Mary Michele, "How Instructors' Attitudes Affect Students," Nursing Outlook. XVII (January, 1969), 27-29.

86. Lewin, Kurt, "Frontiers in Group Dynamics; Concept, Method, and Reality in Social Science," Human Relations. I (1947;» 5-42.

87. , "Group Decision and Social Change," Readings in Social Change. edited by Theodore Newcomb and J. Hartley, New York, Henry Holt Company, 1947.

88. , Ronald Lippitt, and Ralph K. White', "Patterns of Aggressive Behavior in Experimentally Created Social Climates," Journal of Social Psychology, X (May, 1939), 271-199.

89. Lippitt, Ronald, "Field Theory and Experiments in Social Psychology» Autocratic and Democratic Group Atmosphere," American Journal of Sociology. XL • (July, 1939). 26-49.

56

90. » Jeanne Watson, and B. Westley, The Dynamics of Change. New York, Harcourt Brace and World, 1958.

91. and Ralph K. White, "An Experimental Study of Leadership and Group Life," Human Development* Selected Readings, edited "by Morris L. Haimowitz and and Natalie Reader Haimowitz, New York, Thomas Y. Crowell Company, I960,

92. Lobb, M. Delbert, The Pra.cti.cal Aspects of Team Teaching. San Francisco, Fearon Publishing Company, 1964. ' •

93. Lortie, Dan C., "The Teacher and Team Teaching! Suggestions for Long-Range Research," Team Teaching, edited by Judson T, Shaplin, New York, Harper and Row, 1964.

9/+. Lott, Bernice E, and A, J, Lott, "The Formation of Positive Attitudes Toward Group Members," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LXI (September, l^Zo)» 297-300.

95. Lynch, Ann Quarterman, "The Effects of Basic Encounter and Task Training Group Experiences on Undergraduate Advisors to Freshmen Women," unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainsville, Florida, 1968.

96. Mahoney, William M., "Try Co-ordinate Teaching," American School Board Journal, CXXXIX (November, 1959), 13-1^.

97. Mascovic, Serop and Marisa Zavalloni, "The Group As A Polarizer of Attitudes," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. XII (June, I969T, 125-135.

98. Mauksch, H. 0., "Becoming a Nurse 1 A Selective View," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. CCCXLVI (March, 1963), 88-98 . .

99. McKeachie, W. J,, "Current Research on Teacher Effectiveness," Improving College and University Teaching. X (Winter, 1962), 15-19,

100, Medill, Bair and Richard G. Woodward, Team Teaching in Action. Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1964.

101. Merei, Ferenc, "Group Leadership and Institutionaliza-tion," Human Relations. II (19^9)» 23-29.

57

102. Michael, Lloyd S,, "Team Teaching," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin. XLVII Hay, 1963)', 36-63."

103. Mitchell, Wanda B,, "Why Try Team Teaching?" National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin. XLVI (January, 1962), 247-252.

104. Morlan, John E., "Think Twice About Team Teaching," Instructor. LXXII (September, 1963)1 65,'72-73» 142.

105. Morse, Arthur D,, "Open Minds and Flexible Schools," Saturday Review. XLIII (September, i960), 67-68, 90-92.

106. Nelson, Jack L., Robert 0. Hahn, and Gertrude Robinson, "Team Teaching the New Approach," Journal of Teacher Education. XII (September, 1961), 380-382,

107. and G. A, Robinson, "Teacher Education Through Team Teaching," School and Society. XGI (December, 1963)1 409-410.

108. Ninnicht, Glendon P., "A Second Look at Team Teaching," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin. XLVI(December, 1962FT~64-69.

109. Norton, Monte S., "Approaches to Team Teaching," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin. XLIV (October. I960). 8Q-Q2.

110. Ohm, Robert D., "Toward A Rationale for Team Teaching," Administrators Notebook. IX (March, I96I), 1-4,

111. Osgood, Charles E., George J. Suci, and Percy H. Tannenbaum, The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana, University of Illinois Press, 19&7T

112. Pepitone, Albert and George Reichling, "Group Co-hesiveness and the Expression of Hostility," Human Relations. VIII (1955), 327-339.

113. Perkins, H. V,, "Climate Influences Group Learning," Journal of Educational Research. XLV (October, 1951), 115-119,

114. Peterson, Carl H., Effective Team Teaching: The Easton Area High School Program. New York, Parker Publishing Company, 19667

58

115, • "Team Teaching in the High School," Education. LXXXV (February, 19^5), 3^2-347.

116, Pitruzzello, Philip R., "A Report on Team Teaching," Clearing House. XXXVI (February, 1 9 6 2 ) , 333-336.

117, Polos, Nicholas C,, "Team Teachings Past, Present, and Future," Clearing House. XXXIX (April, 1965)1 456-^58.

118, Powell, M. G,, "Comparisons of Self-Ratings, Peer Ratings, and Expert's Ratings of Personality Ad-justment," Educational and Psychological Measurement. VIII (1948), 225-234.

119, Preston, M, G. and R. K. Herntz, "Effects of Participatory Versus Supervisory Leadership on Group Judgment," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. XLV "(July, 19̂ 9*), 3^5-355.

120, Reddin, W, J,, "How To Change Things," Executive Magazine, I (June, 1969), 22-26,

121, Rogers, Carl R,, "The Necessary and Sufficient Con-ditions of Therapeutic Personality Change,," Journal of Consulting Psychology. XXI (April, 1957), 95-103,

122, Rokeach, Milton, "The Nature and Meaning of Dogmatism," Psychological Review. LXI (May, 1954), 194-204,

123 , , The Open and Closed Mind. New York, Basic Books, i 960 ,

124, Schacter, Stanley, Norris Ellertson, Dorothy McBride, and Doris Gregory, "An Experimental Study of Co-hesiveness and Productivity," Human Relations. (19^1). 229-238.

125, Schmuch, Richard A,, Philip J, Runkel, and Daniel Langmeyer, "Improving Organizational Problem Solving in a School Faculty," Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. V (December, 1969) , 455-481,

126, Seagoe, M. V,, "Factors Influencing the Selection of Associates," Journal of Educational Research. XXVII (September, 1933). 32^07

127, Shaplin, Judson T., "Cooperative Teachingi Definitions and Organizational Analysis," Education Digest. XXX (April, 1965) , 25-28.

59

128. and Henry F. Olds, Jr., editors, Team Teaching. New York, Harper and Row, 1964.

129. Shawyer, 0. E.f "Team Teachings How Successful Is It?" Clearing House. XLIII (September, 1968), 21-26.

130. Sherif, Muzafer, et. al., Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation. Norman, Oklahoma, University of Oklahoma Book Exchange, 1961.

131. » Intergroup Relations and Leadershipt Approaches and Research in Industrial, Ethnic. Cultural and Political Areas. New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962.

132. , The Psychology of Social Norms. New York, Harper, 19^8.

133. Siegel, Alberta Engvall and Sidney Siegel, "Reference Groups, Membership Groups, and Attitude Change," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. LV (November, 1957Y, 360-36^,

13^. Snider, James G. and Charles E. Osgood, Semantic Differ-ential Technique: A Sourcebook. Chicago, Aldine Publishing Company, 1969.

135* Sorenson, A. Garth, T. R. Husek, and Y. U. Constance, "Divergent Concepts of Teacher Roles: An Approach to the Measurement of Teacher Effectiveness," Journal of Educational Psychology. LIV (December, 1963), 287-29̂ -.

136. Stotland, Ezra and Nickolas B. Cottrell, "Group Inter-action and Perceived Similarities of Members," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. LVI (November, i 9 6 0 ) , 335-340.

137. Strickland, Lloyd H., Edward E. Jones, and William P. Smith, "Effects of Group Support on the Evaluation of an Antagonist," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. LXI (July, 196o77 73-91.

138. Tannenbaum, P. H., "Attitudes Toward Source and Con-cept as Factors in Attitude Change Through Communication, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, 1953•

139# "Team Teaching: Proceed with Caution," Editorial, Clearing House. XXXIX (January, 1965), 315.

6o

140. Trump, J. Lloyd, "What is Team Teaching?" Education. LXXXV (February, 1965), 327-332,

141. and Dorsey. Baynham, Focus on Change 1 Guide to Better Schools. Chicago, Rand McNally, 1961.

142. Vacchiano, R. B,, P. S. Strauss, and D, C, Scheffman, "Personality Correlates of Dogmatism," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. XXXII (February, 1 9 6 8 ) , 8 3 - 8 5 .

143. Verett, Gary D,, "The Effect of a Summer Group Counseling Institute on Selected Attitudes and Personality Charac-teristics of Junior College Counselors," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, North Texas State University, Denton, Texas, 1970,

144. Walker, B, S, and D. F, Little, "Factor Analysis of the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory," Journal of Counseling Psychology. XVI (November, 1 9 6 9 ) , 5 1 6 - 5 2 1 .

145. Wayne, Dora, "School Nursing and Team Teaching," Nursing Outlook. XVII (July, 1969) , 37.

146. Weiss, Thomas M. and Mary Scott Morris, "A Critique of the Team Approach," Education Forum. XXIV (January, i 9 6 0 ) , 207-208.

147. Wigderson, Harry I., "Team Teaching in American Education," Education. LXXXV (February, 1965) , 323-326.

148. Zagona, S. V. and L. A. Zurcher, "Notes on the Relia-bility and Validity of the Dogmatism Scale," Psycho-logical Reports. XVI (June 1 9 6 5 ) , 1 2 3 4 - 1 2 3 6 .

149. Zander, Alvin, "Strength of Group and Desire for Attainable Group Aspirations," Journal of Person-ality, XXXIII (March, 1965) , 122-139.

150. Zander, Alvin and H. Meadow, "Individual and Group Levels of Aspiration," Human Relations. XVI (August, 1965), 273-287.

CHAPTER III

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

This study was conducted to compare two different

approaches to leadership training workshops—a team/group

dynamics training model and a team/traditional training

model—with regard to the changes in tolerance, open-

mindedness, flexibility, adaptability, and cooperativeness

of the participants in the group dynamics model.

Subjects

Subjects for this study consisted of four groups—

two groups which received different treatments and two

comparison groups which did not receive treatment. Two

groups consisted of twenty subjects each and two groups

consisted of eighteen subjects each. The groups were

designated Treatment Group I (Ti), Treatment Group II

(T2), Comparison Group I (Ci), and Comparison Group

II (C2). All of the subjects in this study were female

instructors,

Description of Instruments

Four instruments were utilized in this study1 the

Rokeach Dogmatism Scale. Form E, for general dogmatism}

61

62

the Barrett-Lermard Relationship Inventory for perception

of group relationships? the Personal Concept Scale for

attitudes toward selected concepts; and an Evaluation Scale

for ratings of self and of colleagues with regard to total

group functioning.

The Rokeach Dogmatism Scale (RDS) (See Appendix A)

has been widely used in diverse studies since Rokeach*s

i960 publication of The Open and Closed Mind and the

Dogmatism Scale (1, 13, 20, 21, 2?, 28, 30).

Rokeach developed the RDS to measure two general

personality characteristics, (l) general authoritarianism,

and (2) general intolerance. The scale was used in this

study as a gauge of general dogmatism, intolerance and

relative closedness of the instructors* belief systems.

The RDS also provided a baseline from which other instruments

in the study were compared.

The RDS consists of forty items. The respondent is

asked to indicate agreement or disagreement with each item

by assigning +1 (agree a little), +2 (agree on the whole),

or +3 (strongly agree), and -1 (disagree a little), -2

(disagree on the whole), or -3 (strongly disagree). There

is no neutral (0) position on the response scale. To obtain

a total score, a constant of four is added to each response

and the values of the items are added together. For all

statements, agreement is scored as closed and disagreement

63

as open. Total scores may range from forty (low dogmatism)

to 280 (high dogmatism) (21).

Numerous studies have dealt with the scale's predictive,

concurrent, and construct validity (l, 13» 27, 28, 30), and

reliabilities of the scale range from .68 to .93 (28). The

reliability is especially high with adult and high school

populations. One study reported a test-retest correlation

of .55 over a five-year period (27). The test-retest

reliability has also been found to be consistent for those

scoring high or low on the scale (30).

The Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory (RI) is an

adaptation from Rogers' (19) concepts regarding the con-

dition necessary for therapeutic personality change. The

RI measures four dimensions of interpersonal relationships*

(1) empathic understanding, (2) congruence, (3) level of

regard, and (k) unconditionally of regard as they are

perceived by the participant. The instrument may be used

in dyadic relationships and with groups.

The RI consists of sixty-four items, sixteen for each

of the four dimensions, which assess the participant's

perception of the group relationships along the four dimensions.

Each statement is scored according to a seven-point scale

which ranges from strong agreement with the statement to

strong disagreement with the statement (29, p. 517).

64

Form Mo-G-64 of the RI was used in this study. This

scale (see Appendix B) provides the respondent with statements

of the ways that he perceives that others may feel about or

behave toward him ("They respect me as a person,")

Split-half and test-retest reliability coefficients

range from .75 to ,9^ for the four principal RI scales

(3» P« 2 t 5). One pilot study conducted on the group form

of the RI obtained a test-retest correlation coefficient of

,86 for total scores on the instrument (3).

The Semantic Differential technique (SD) was developed

by Osgood, et. al,, to measure the connotative meaning of

concepts used generally in any society, such as father, home,

freedom, et, al. Such concepts have both denotative meanings,

that is actual lexical definitions, and connotative meanings,

which derive from the attitude of the individual toward the

concept. The SD provides a continua of polar traits which

allow the respondent to register his precise connotation

of the conept in question, The Personal Concept Scale

(See Appendices C and D) is a Semantic Differential

developed by Berg (?, p, 6) which was used to measure the

two concepts utilized in this study; namely, "Self" and

"Ideal Self," Both concepts were rated on the twenty polar

scale items included in the technique. Each item on the

scale was then evaluated on a seven-point scale measuring

65

intensity and the relative congruence between the two

concepts (22, pp. 269-270).

The "Semantic space" is a three-dimensional model

involving evaluative, activity, and.potency factors in any

concept. By charting these factors on the pre-post- and

follow-up tests, it becomes possible to measure the change

in meanings of the critical concepts as a result of the

passage of time or of new experiences; to examine the

different meanings given to the same concept by different

subjectsi and to show how similarly a given subject per-

ceives a number of concepts (22, pp. 271-272).

The Evaluation Scale (ES) is a rating device developed

in 1970 by Psychology 585 students in an effort to categorize

and rate certain characteristics of perceived responsibility

toward, total group functioning. The ES, a seven-point

scale, which ranges from maximum contributions toward group

effort (high score) to minimal contributions toward group

effort (low score) was employed in this study with Ti sub-

jects to provide ratings in the categories of "Self Evaluation"

(see Appendix E) and "Colleague Evaluation" (see Appendix F).

In addition to a self rating, each T̂ member was also rated

individually by five members of her instructional staff,

Cronbach (12, pp. 510-511), by use of the Spearman-

Brcwn formula, provides evidence that the reliability of

rating scales is .̂ 5 with one rater, increases to .60 when

two raters are utilized, and increases to .80 when five raters

are employed.

66

The participants in Ti included the entire instructional

staff at Baylor University School of Nursing in Dallas,

Texas, The faculty participated in a three-day preparatory

workshop which utilized a team/group dynamics training

model and which was led by specialists in group dynamics

and specialists in team teaching methodology. The workshop

was conducted at the School of Nursing, The entire faculty

employed a team teaching approach exclusively as their

teaching methodology in June, 1971.

The T2 subjects consisted of elementary school teachers

who participated in a three-day team teaching workshop in

June, 1971. The workshop was sponsored by the Region XI

Education Service Center in Port Worth, Texas, The work-

shop was led by team teaching specialists from the University

of California in Los Angeles. The program consisted primarily

of didactic instruction information presented by the spe-

cialists ,

Participants in Cx consisted of faculty instructors

from Texas Womans University School of Nursing in Dallas,

The subjects in C2 were elementary school teachers who

were enrolled in a master's level education course at North

Texas State University in Denton, Texas, during the first

five weeks of summer school, 1971.

67

Procedures for Collection of Data

The subjects in Ti were pre-tested, post-tested, and

follow-up-tested with the Barrett-Lennard Relationship

Inventory. the Personal Concept Scale. and the Evaluation

Scale. This group was also pre-tested and post-tested with

the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale. All other subjects in the study

were pre-tested and post-tested with the Barrett-Lennard

Relationship Inventory and the Personal Concept Scale. The

participants in groups T2, Cx, and C2 were also pre-tested

with the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale. Both treatment groups

were administered the pre-test instruments one week prior

to the workshops and immediately following the final day of

the workshop for the post-tests. Treatment I subjects were

administered the follow-up test approximately six weeks

following the workshop experience. Both comparison groups

were administered the pre-test and post-test instruments

during the same time interval as the treatment groups. All

subjects were instructed that all information presented would

be considered confidential and the results would be utilized

solely for the purposes of this study.

The Treatment I subjects were given information re-

garding the dates, nature, and purposes of the training

workshop during a regular faculty meeting in April at

Baylor University School of Nursing by Geddes McLaughlin,

Dean. One week prior to the workshop, the instructors were

administered the pre-test measurements.

68

The subjects in Treatment II were contacted and requested

to participate in the study on the basis of information ob-

tained from Frank Buell, Assistant Director, Instruction and

Staff Development, at the Region XI Service Center in Fort

Worth, Texas, Teachers in this group were mailed the pre-

test instruments one week prior to the T2 training workshop

and were requested to complete the measurements and return

them in the postage-paid, return envelopes which were pro-

vided the subjects, A similar procedure was followed for

the post-test measurements.

Margaret Hardy, Dean of the School of Nursing at Texas

Womans, University, Denton, Texas, was contacted in May and

asked for the assistance from her instructional staff to

participate in this study, Pre-test instruments were mailed

to the instructors in Ci during approximately the same time

interval observed by T^, The subjects were requested to

complete the instruments and return them in the postage-

paid, return envelopes which were provided the instructors,

A similar procedure was followed for the administration of

the post-test measurements.

The subjects in C2 were asked to participate in .the

study by responding to the pre-and post-test instruments

in their intact class situation during approximately the

same time interval observed by T2,

69

Procedures for the Team/Group Dynamics Leadership Training Workshop

The training workshop in which T^ participated utilized

an integration of didactic instruction and applications of

selected group dynamics principles throughout the workshop.

The didactic instruction was presented in five stages

over the three-day period.

Stage I. Definitions. In this stage the team teaching

specialist led the group of instructors into an investigation

of the philosophy underlying team teaching? the rationale

for team teaching; the general characteristics of team

teaching? and the roles and characteristics of effective

team members.

Stage II, Mechanics, In this stage the team-teaching

specialist suggested methods and procedures by which team

teaching may be initiated? the group structure necessary

for cooperative planning? the team roles to be performed?

the formal working relationships between team members? the

utilization of all staff members? and the techniques of prob-

lem solving utilized in team planning.

Stage III, Content, In this stage the desired goals

of team teaching within the school were investigated with

the instructors? the anticipated outcomes for the year as

a result of cooperative teaching were explored; the effect

of team teaching on the curriculum were examined; inclusive

of testing, grading, reporting, physical facilities, equip-

ment and other learning resources.

70

Stage IV, Product. In this stage of the workshop the

instructors began implementing the methods and techniques

of team planning in a product-oriented endeavor which con-

sisted of preparing a new curriculum for the 1971-1972

academic year.

Stage V, Evaluation. In this stage of the leadership

training workshop, evaluations of the training experiences

were made at the completion of each phase of the program and

also at the conclusion of the three-day program by the entire

staff to determine the outcomes, strengths, and weaknesses

of the project. During the final stage, plans were formu-

lated for a follow-up evaluation on June 28 by the entire

instructional staff, by the group dynamics specialists, and

by the team teaching specialist.

The didactic phase of the workshop was primarily pre-

sented by Toby J. Rigby, Professor of Education at Baylor

University in Waco.

The applications of selected group dynamics theories

espoused by Bartlett, Cartwright, Schmuck, and others (6, 9»

18, 23) were an important aspect of the leadership training

workshop. Sessions began with activities which involved

each of the staff members in group interactions geared

toward interpersonal openness and helpfulness. The

application of group activities based on principles of

group dynamics (6, 10, 23, 31) were integrated into the

total training program. Some of the group techniques

71

included group discussions, systematic problem solving, role

playing, buzz groups, fish bowling, feedback of group

observations, and caselets.

The group dynamics specialists led the instructors in

the group activities. The exercises included the following

techniques integrated throughout the workshop with the

didactic presentationsi

1, Art Icebreaker. The group facilitators gave each

participant a piece of paper and some crayons. The in-

structors were asked to express their feelings at that

moment in the form of words, pictures, or symbols which

represented, their feelings at the beginning of the workshop. -

After the subjects had completed the drawings, each person

showed her effort to the entire group and explained its

significance to her.

Purposes This technique was used to bring the group

together prior to any other activities, involve the group

with the "here and nowj" and to relieve self consciousness

in preparation for group task-oriented work.

2. Task Groups. The group leaders divided the faculty

into four groups. Two groups were assigned "inner circle"

positions and two groups were assigned "outer circle" positions.

The two inner circle groups discussed the topici "The

greatest problems we encounter when working in groups."

The inner and outer circles then switched positions and the

new groups in the inner circles discussed the same topic.

72

Following the small group discussions, the group facilitators

led discussions on the process of communication within the

group, including observing verbal and non-verbal behavior,

eye contact, and so forth.

Purpose» This activity gave the groups an opportunity

to safely express feelings, concerns, encouraged openness,

and prepared the group members for personal sharing experiences,

3, Roleplaying. The groups facilitators introduced

the group to concepts such as (l) empathy, (2) genuineness,

(3) regard-respect, (*0 perception, (5) congruence, and

(6) feedback. The leaders then demonstrated the incorporation

of such concepts into roleplaying situations. The participants

then discussed the "roles" they observed, the emotional

tone expressed, and the concepts such as empathy, and respect,

they observed being utilized.

Purposes This exercise showed the relationship of

these concepts to personal functioning, group functioning,

and the applicability of them to all relationships,

4, Brainstorming. The instructors were asked by the

facilitators to join with three other instructors near them

for a two-minute brainstorming session. They were asked to

collaborate with the other staff members in suggesting as

many characteristics of effective team members as they could.

Lists of characteristics were recorded as the groups announced

their contributions.

73

Purpose! This approach was utilized to emphasize the

number of suggestions available as a result of team members

collaboration, even for brief periods of time,

5. Who Will Live? The instructors were asked to get

into groups of five. Each participant was given a mimeo-

graphed sheet on which a situation, problem, and task were

given (see Appendix G), The subjects were first asked to

solve the problem individually by choosing the five survivors

from the list whom they would choose to live. Next, the

small groups were encouraged to solve the problem of survival

by arriving at concensus with members of their group as to

the five survivors the small group would.choose. The groups

were informed that if a "You" were selected, only one person

from the group could be the representative for that position.

Each group provided the leaders with its list of five

survivors and these were recorded on a chalk board in the

front of the meeting room, A spokesman for each small group

then shared with the entire group her group's method of

problem-solving and how her group arrived at consensus. The

rationale for survivors was also given by the groups.

Purpose! This technique provided practice in the group

process and in group problem solving. The group then dis-

cussed ways in which the experience was similar to or

different from what usually happened in their problem-solving

experiences within the school setting.

74

6. Attitude Assessment. Prior to the session the

facilitators had posted twenty-five pictures which were

mounted on colorful construction paper. The pictures were

arranged around the meeting room and represented numerous

moods such as love, hate, morality, prejudice, tolerance,

greed, and so forth. Each person was given a sheet with

the categories of (l) Love, (2) Sex, (3) Morality, and

(k) Immorality listed on it. The participants were then

instructed to select three pictures that best illustrated

each category. First, second, and third choices were

rated on each category. The subjects then joined with

other members of their team and shared the choices they

had made with their team members and suggested reasons for

the choices. The results from each individual were charted

on a master sheet, and recorded on a master list on the

chalk board. The group leaders then led the entire group

in a discussion about attitudes which emerged within the

small groups during the discussions and also presented the

entire group's findings.

Purpose« The attitude assessment exercise was to

increase awareness of interpersonal and organizational

processes and the relevance of each person's attitude to

group functioning.

75

7. Nonverbal Communication. An Experiment in

Cooperation. The leaders explained to the group that the

exercise depended on cooperation from each person in the

group. The leaders stated the three requirements for

cooperations (l) Everyone had to understand the problem?

(2) Everyone needed to believe that he could help, and

(3) Everyone needed- to think of the other person as well

as himself. The leader then passed out envelopes to the

subjects on which instructions were recorded. The in-

structors read that the puzzle could only be solved with

cooperation of all five members in her group. The

facilitators announced that the exercise would be performed

without -talking and that the subjects could give pieces of

their puzzle to another member but she could not take a

piece unless it was given. When each participant had all

of the pieces needed to complete her puzzle, the facilitators

led the groups in a discussion of the process involved in

solution of the problem and the feelings that were ex-

perienced as the groups worked through the problem.

Purposei The non-verbal communication technique

emphasized the importance of cooperation of all members in

a group task situation.

8. Caselets. "What will happen to these children?"

(see Appendix H). Each instructor was given a sheet of

paper on which are recorded three cases containing sketches

from the lives of three people. The subjects were divided

?6

into three groups and each group formed an inner circle

and the remaining staff members formed an outer circle,

creating a fishbowl effect. Each group discussed one case

and made prognoses for the child their group discussed.

Each of the two remaining groups followed similar procedures

in discussing their cases. The subjects were then informed

that the case study information consisted of minute segments

from the lives of (l) Albert Einstein, (2) Eleanor Roosevelt,

and (3) Winston Churchill. The groups were then led in a

discussion about what the caselets told the intructors, and

what they did not tell the instructors about the people.

Purpose: This activity emphasized that more information

is often needed to make decisions regarding human behavior.

9. Taking Stock. The facilitators led the entire group

in a discussion on how the group was progressing in problem

solving. Positive outcomes of the day's activities were

discussed as were the negative outcomes. A fishbowl technique

was utilized which provided two extra chairs for "outside"

participants to join the "inside" group to offer suggestions,

ask questions, or make other comments to the group that was

participating in the inner circle.

10. Personal Sharing, The instructors were all seated

in one large circle. Each member of the group described

her own strengths and positive contributions and what she

felt she could add to the total group functioning. After

each person made a contribution, the entire group discussed

77

what their unique staff would be like if all of the members*

positive assets were utilized.

Procedures for the Team/Traditional Leadership Training Workshop

The consultants for the traditional leadership training

workshop presented information in primarily didactic fashion

throughout the training sessions. When "small groups" were

utilized, these groups consisted of approximately seventy-

five teachers. Below is listed the schedule of activities

followed for the traditional team teaching workshop.

Session I. Tuesday. June 16

Pre-test on Team Teaching

Rational for Team Teaching as it contributed to Individualized Instruction, Advantages, and Problems

Roles and Team Organization

Small groups for questions and discussion

Participant assessment and questions

Descriptions of teaming for phases of education

Session II. Wednesday. June 16

Rationale for Team Objectives as they contributed to Individualized Instruction

Small groups for beginning and advanced planning on objectives, terminal and enroute

Diagnosis in cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains

Small groups generated instructional objectives for diagnosis and instructional planning

78

Session III. Thursday. June 17

Learning Theory in terms of classroom practices and Individualization of Instruction

Increasing the rate and degree of learning

Participant assessment and grouping for interest and further study

Following the final sessions of the training workshops,

all participants in the study were given the Barrett-Lennard

Relationship Inventory and the Personal Concept Scale.

Members of T^ were also administered the Evaluation Scale.

After the follow-up meeting held on June 28 for T^ subjects,

the final testing session was conducted and the group members

were administered the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale. the Barrett-

Lennard Relationship Inventory, the Personal Concept Scale,

and the Evaluation Scale.

Procedures for Analysis of Data

At the conclusion of the leadership training workshops,

analysis of the data for the testing instruments was data

processed by the Computer Center at North Texas State

University. Hypotheses numbered three and five were

statistically treated by the use of the analysis of

covariance. Hypotheses numbered six and seven were

analyzed by the use of the t test for correlated means.

All other hypotheses were analyzed by the use of the

Fisher's t technique. The level of significance was

reported for each hypothesis.


1. Anderson, Sharon Jane, "Changes in Attitudes, Person-ality, and Effectiveness of Counselor Trainees in Counseling Practicums," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, North Texas State University, Denton, Texas, 19&8.

2. Anderson, James Franklin, "The Relationship Between Leadership Training in Group Dynamics and the Development of Groups Among Disadvantaged Youth," unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, 1968,

3. Barrett-Lennard, G. T.,"The Relationship Inventory} Revision Process," paper delivered at the 19&3 Annual Conference of the British Psychological Society, Australian Branch.

Technical Note on the 64-Item Revision of the Relationship Inventory, Ontario, Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, 1969.

5. and L, N. Jewell, "A Selection of Reported Studies Using the Relationship In-ventory," unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Ontario, 1966,

6. Bartlett, Alton, "Changing Behavior as a Means to In-creased Efficiency," Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. Ill (1967), 381-^01.

7. Beck, Don E. and Robert C. Berg, Human Relations 8 An Instructional Manual for American Airlines Stewardess College, unpublished manuscript, Communications/Human Relations Institute, Denton, Texas, 1970.

8. Bonney, Merl E,, The Normal Personality, Berkley, McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 19&9.

9. Cartwright, Dorwin, "Achieving Change in People: Some Applications of Group Dynamics Theory," Human Relations. IV (1951)» 381-392.

10, and Alvin Zander, Group Dynamics t Research and Theory. New York, Harper and Row, 1968.

79

80

11. Coyne, Lolafaye and Philip S. Holzman, "Three Equivalent Forms of a Semantic Differential Inventory," Educational and Psychological Measurement, XXVI (Autumn, i960), 3 ^ - 5 7 J.

12. Cronback, Lee J., Essentials of Psychological Testing, 2nd. ed., New York, Harper and Row, i960.

13. Grigsby, David A., "The Effects of Student Teaching Upon Attitudinal Characterisitcs Considered Basic for Effective Counselors," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, North Texas State University, Denton, Texas, 1970,

111. Little, D. F. and B. S. Walker, "Factor Analysis of the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory," Journal of Counseling Psychology, XVI (November, 19°9)» 516-521.

15. Osgood, Charles E., George J. Suci, and Percy H. Tannenbaum, The Measurement of Meaning, Urbana, University of Illinois Press, 1967.

16. Powell, M. G., "Comparisons of Self-Ratings, Peer Ratings, and Expert's Ratings of Personality Ad-justment," Educational and Psychological Measure-ment. viii ( 1 9 W , 225-234.

17. Preston, M. G. and R. K. Herntz, "Effects of Partici-patory Versus Supervisory Leadership on Group Judgment," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XLV (July, 19^9). 3^5-355.

18. Reddin, W. J., "How To Change Things," Executive Magazine, I (June, 1969), 22-26.

19. Rogers, Carl R., "The Necessary and Sufficient Con-ditions of Therapeutic Personality Change," Journal of Consulting Psychology. XXI (April, 1957)» 95-103.

20. Rokeach, Milton, "The Nature and Meaning of Dogmatism," Psychological Review, LXI (May, 195^-) > 19^-20^.

21. , The Open and Closed Mind. New York, Basic Books, i960.

22. Sax, Gilbert, Empirical Foundations of Educational Re-search. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, Inc., 1968.

81

23. Schmuch, Richard A,, P. J, Runkel, and Daniel Langmeyer, "Improving Oranginational Problem Solving in a School Faculty," Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. V (December, 19697, 455-^81.

2k. Snider, James G. and Charles E. Osgood, Semantic Differ-ential Technique t A Sourcebook, Chicago, Aldine Publishing Company, 1969#

25. Sorenson, A. G,, T, R. Husek, and Y. U. Constance, "Divergent Concepts of Teacher Roles j An Approach to the Measurement of Teacher Effectiveness," Journal of Educational Psychology, LIV (December, 1963),287-294.

26. Tannenbaum, P. H, , "Attitudes Toward Source and Con-cept as Factors in Attitude Change Through Communi-cation," unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana, 1953.

27. Vacchiano, R. B., P. S. Strauss, and D. C. Scheffman, "Personality Correlates of Dogmatism," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. XXXII (February, 19S8TT83-85.

28. Vereet, Gary D., "The Effect of a Summer Group Counseling Institute on Selected Attitudes and Personality Characteristics of Junior College Counselors," un-published doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, North Texas State University, Denton, Texas, 1970.

29. Walker, B. S. and D, F. Little, "Factor Analysis of the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory," Journal of Counseling Psychology. XVI (November, 196977516-521.

30. Zagona, S, V, and L. A. Zurcher, "Notes on the Relia-bility and Validity of the Dogmatism Scale," Psychological Reports. XVI (June, 1965), 123^-1236,

31. Zander, Alvin, "Strength of Group and Desire for Attainable Group Aspirations," Journal of Person-ality, XXXIII (March, 1965), 122-139,

CHAPTER IV

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OP RESULTS

The purpose of this chapter is to present a statistical

analysis of the data obtained in this study relevant to the

hypothesis. Three statistical techniques were utilized in

the analysis of the results—the analysis of covariance, the

t test for correlated means, and the Fisher's t Test. Hypo-

theses numbered three and five were analyzed by the use of

the analysis of covariance technique. Hypotheses numbered

six and seven were analyzed by the use of the t test for

correlated means. All other hypotheses were analyzed'by use

of the Fisher's t technique. The level of significance will

be reported for each hypothesis.

— Hypothesis I

In Hypothesis I it was predicted that the mean scores

on the post-test for subjects receiving Treatment I would be

significantly higher than the mean scores on the pre-test of

"the Relationship Inventory, on the following dimensions t

a. Empathic Understanding

b. Level of Regard

c. Congruence


e. Total Score

82

83

The results of the Fisher's t technique computed to test

this hypothesis are shown in Table I.

TABLE I

PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST MEAN SCORES ON THE RELATIONSHIP INVENTORY

Dimension Pre-test

Mean S.D. Post-test

Mean S.D. t p*

Empathy in .30 12.55 45.85 9.24 -2.02 .03

Regard 56.30 11.17 57.05 IO.23 -0.34 NS

Congruence 41.30 17.^8 44.25 11.35 -0.87 IMS

Uncondition-ality 36.35 10.96 40.55 10.09 -1.74 .05

Total Score 175.75 41.74 187.30 34.92 -1.88 .04

*One-tailed test.

Three dimensions in Hypotheses I reached a probability

of better than .05i namely, Empathy, ,03s Unconditionally,

,05; and Total Score, .04.

Hypothesis II

In Hypothesis II it was predicted that the mean scores

on the follow-up test for subjects receiving Treatment I

would be significantly higher than the mean scores on the

post-test of the Relationship Inventory, on the following

dimensions«

84

a. Empathic Understanding

b. Level of Regard

c. Congruence


e. Total Score

The results of the Fisher's t technique computed to test

this hypothesis are shown in Table II,

TABLE II

POST-TEST AND FOLLOW-UP TEST MEAN SCORES ON THE RELATIONSHIP INVENTORY

Dimension Post-test

Mean S.D. Follow-Mean

up Test S.D, t p «

Empathy 45.85 9.24 50.20 11.88 1 OO

0

.04

Regard 57.05 IO.23 58.70 10.47 -0.60 NS

Congruence 44.2 5 11.35 48,65 16,44 -1.57 .08

Uncondition-ality 40.55 10,09 41,60 11.47 -0.42 NS

Total Score

_ - f - <~S -

187.30

! 1 /^1 /-3 4 - y \ f—1 4 -

34.92 199.10 40.68 -1.53 .09

The dimension of Empathy reached a probability of .04

with Congruence and Total Score reaching probabilities of

,08 and ,09 respectively.

Hypothesis III

In Hypothesis III it was predicted that the mean scores

on the post-test of the Relationship Inventory for subjects

85

receiving Treatment I (T^ ) would be significantly higher than

for subjects receiving Treatment II (T2), for Comparison Group

I (Ci), and for Comparison Group II (C2) on the following

dimensionst

a. Erapathic Understanding

b. Level of Regard

c. Congruence


e. Total Score

The results of the analysis of covariance technique

computed to test this hypothesis are shown in Table III,

The F-ratios of 2.18 and 3-06 were significant at the

.09 and .03 levels of probability, respectively.

Hypothesis IV

In Hypothesis IV it was predicted that the mean scores

on the post-test of the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale for Ti

would be significantly lower than the mean scores on the

pre-test.

The results of the Fisher's t technique computed to

test this hypothesis are shown in Table IV,

The results recorded in Table IV show there was no '

significant difference in the mean scores in Hypothesis

IV.

TABLE III

SUMMARY OP COVARIANCE DERIVED FROM DATA ON THE RELATIONSHIP INVENTORY

86

Area Source

Sum of Squares

Degrees of Freedom

Mean Square

F Ratio

Empathy Total Within Difference

5347.73 4907.66 440.07

76 73 3

67.22 146.69 2 . 1 8 *

Regard Total Within Difference

6 0 2 5 . 6 6 5869.70 155.96

76 73 3

80.40 51.98 NS

Congruence Total Within ' Difference

5145.78 4847.33

2 9 8 . 4 5

76 73 3

66.40 99.48 NS

Uncondi-tionality

Total Within Difference

8 9 6 3 . 5 0 8476.19 487.31

76 73 3

ll6.ll 1 6 2 . 4 3 NS

Total Score


31750.88 28202.80 3548.08

76 73 3

3 8 6 . 3 3 1182.69 3.06*

^'Significant at the .10 level or above.

The results recorded in Table IV show there was no

significant difference in the mean scores in Hypothesis IV.

The pre-test, post-test, means and standard deviations of

Treatment Group II and Comparison Groups on the Personal

Concept Scale are found in Table X in Appendix H,

TABLE IV

PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST MEAN SCORES ON THE ROKEACH DOGMATISM SCALE

8?

Variable Mean S.D. Diffei Mean

rence S.D. t p*

Pre-test

Post-test

13^-.90

132.10

19.^

23.74 2.80 26.4.1 *

NS

Ône-1 ;ailed test.

Hypothesis V

In Hypothesis V it was predicted that the mean scores

on the post-test of the Personal Concept Scale for T2, Cj,

and C2 would be significantly higher than the mean scores

on the pre-test.

The results of the analysis of covariance used to test

this hypothesis are shown in Table V.

TABLE V

SUMMARY OF COVARIANCE DERIVED FROM DATA ON T H E PERSONAL CONCEPT SCALE

Concepts Source

Sum of Squares

Degrees of Freedom

Mean Squares

F Ratio

"I Am" "I Would Like To Be"

*Or»o


mm T" Q 1 1 £& H 4*

1^9.38 142.06

7.32

56

2 2.63 3,66 NS

88

The results recorded in Table V indicate that there was

no significant difference found in the mean scores in Hypo-

thesis V. The pre-test and post-test means and standard

deviations of Relationship Inventory scores are found in

Table XI in Appendix I,

Hypothesis VI

In Hypothesis VI it was predicted that the mean scores

on the post-test of the Personal Concept Scale for Ti would

be significantly higher than the mean scores on the pre-test.

The results of the t test for correlated means com-

puted to test this hypothesis are show in Table VI.

TABLE VI

PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST MEAN SCORES ON THE PERSONAL CONCEPT SCALE

Variable Mean S.D. Difference

Variable Mean S.D. Mean S.D. t P*

Pre-test

Post-test

5.20

2.15 i

3M

2.15 3.05 2.76 -4.93 .0001

A probability level of better than .0001 was reached

in Hypothesis VI.

Hypothesis VII

In Hypothesis VII it was predicted that the mean

scores on the follow-up test of the Personal Concept

89

Scale for Tj. would be significantly higher than the mean

scores on the post-test.

The results of the t test for correlated means com-

puted to test this hypothesis are shown in Table VII,

TABLE VII

POST-TEST AND FOLLOW-UP TEST MEAN SCORES ON THE PERSONAL CONCEPT SCALE

Diffe-rence Variable Mean < S.D. Mean S.D. , t p*

Post-test

Follow-up Test

2,15

3.05

2 . 1 5

2,92

-0,90 3.24 -1.24 NS

test

No significant difference was found between post-test

and follow-up test mean scores in Hypothesis VII,

Hypothesis VIII

In Hypothesis VIII^ it was predicted that the mean

scores on the post-test for Tj_ would be significantly

higher than the mean scores on the pre-test as measured

by the Evaluation Scale in the following categories!

a. Self Evaluation

b. Colleague Evaluation


test this hypothesis are shown in Table VIII,

90

TABLE VIII

PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST MEAN SCORES ON THE EVALUATION SCALE

Pre-̂ Pest Post-1 ?est Difference Category Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. t P*

Self Evalua-tion

5 5 . 8 3 8 . 9 3 6 6 . 7 7 6 . 5 7 - 1 0 . 9 ^ 8 . 5 5 - 5 . 4 2 . 0 0 0 1

Colleague Evalua-tion

8 9 . 7 2 4 .56 8 8 . 9 4 3 . 1 5 . 7 8 4 . 3 7 . 7 5 NS

*One-tailed test

The category of Self Evaluation reached a probability

level of better than .0001 in Hypothesis VIII, There was no

significant difference found for the category Colleague

Evaluation,

Hypothesis IX

In Hypothesis IX it was predicted that the mean scores

on the follow-up test of the Evaluation Scale for T^ would

be significantly higher than the adjusted mean scores on

the post-test in the following categories*

a. Self Evaluation

b. Colleague Evaluation


test this hypothesis are shown in Table IX.

91

TABLE IX

POST-TEST AND FOLLOW-UP MEAN SCORES ON THE EVALUATION SCALE

Category Post-1 ?est

Follow-up Test _Difference t p*

Category Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. t p*

Self . Evalua-tion

66.77 6.57 66, 94 4.56 -0.17 4.87 -0.14 NS

Colleague Evalua-tion

r%... _

88.94 3.15 88.38 4.11 .56 3.31 .71 NS

No significant differences were found between post and

follow-up test mean scores in Hypothesis IX,

Summary

The purpose of this chapter was to report the statistical

findings of this study. The statistical analyses of the re-

sults were made utilizing three statistical techniques—the

analysis of covariance, the t test for correlated means, and

the Fisher's t Test.

In Hypothesis I three dimensions were found to have a

probability level of better than .05. These dimensions were

Empathy, .03; Unconditionality, .05; and Total Score, .04.

No significant differences were found on the dimensions of

Regard and of Congruence.

. 92

In Hypothesis II three dimensions were found to have

a probability level of better than .10. These dimensions

were Empathy, .04j Congruence, .08} and Total Score, .09.

No significant differences were found on the dimensions of

Regard and Unconditionally,

In Hypothesis III the F-ratio of 2.18 on the dimension

of Empathy was significant at better than the .10 level of

probability. The P-ratio of on the Total Score was

significant at better than the ,05 level of probability.

In Hypothesis IV no significant differences were

found between pre-test and post-test mean scores.

In Hypothesis V no significant differences were found

between pre-test and post-test mean scores.

In Hypothesis VI a probability level of better than

,0001 was found between pre-test and post-test mean scores.

In Hypothesis VII no significant differences were

found between post-test and follow-up mean scores.

In Hypothesis VIII the category of "Self Evaluation"

reached a probability level of better than .0001, No

significant difference was found on the category of

"Colleague Evaluation" between pre-test and post-test

mean scores.

93

In Hypothesis IX no significant differences were found

on the categories of "Self Evaluation" and "Colleague

Evaluation" "between post-test and follow-up test mean scores.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, RESULTS, INTERPRETATION,

AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

This study was conducted to compare two leadership

training approaches with female instruction staff members.

The purposes of this study were (l) to measure the degree

to which the subjects are openminded, tolerant, flexible,

adaptable, and cooperative; (2) to ascertain the influence

of group dynamics activities within a training workshop

on.interpersonal relationships within the group; and (3)

to establish a baseline from which selected attitudinal

characteristics may be compared with other selected personal

and group dimensions.

The following hypotheses were testedJ

I, The mean scores on the post-test of the Relation-

ship Inventory for subjects receiving Treatment I (T^) will

be significantly higher than the mean scores on the pre-test

on the following dimensions«

a. Level of Regard

b, Empathic Understanding

9k

95

c. Congruence


e. Total Score

II. The mean scores on the follow-up test of the

Relationship Inventory for Ti will be significantly higher

than the mean scores on the post-test on the following

dimensions s

a. Level of Regard


c. Congruence


e. Total Score

III, The mean scores on the post-test of the 'Relation-

ship Inventory for T^ will be significantly higher than for

subjects receiving Treatment II (T2), for Comparison Group I

(C^), and for Comparison Group II (C2) on the following

dimensions»

a. Level of Regard


c. Congruence


e. Total Score

IV. The mean scores on the post-test of the Rokeach

Dogmatism Scale for T^ will be significantly lower than the


9 6

V. The mean scores on the post-test of the

Personal Concept Scale for Tg, , and C2 will be signifi-

cantly higher than the mean scores on the pre-test,

VI. The mean scores on the post-test of the


than the mean scores on the pre-test,

VII, The mean scores on the follow-up test of the


than the mean scores on the post-test,

VIII, The mean scores on the post-test of the

Evaluation Scale for Ti will be significantly higher than the


IX, The mean scores on the follow-up test of the

Evaluation Scale for Ti will be significantly higher than

the mean scores on the pre-test.

The subjects employed for the study were seventy-six

female instructional staff members from the North Central

Texas area. Twenty of the subjects comprised the entire

instructional staff at Baylor University School of Nursing

in Dallas, Texas, This group was designated as Treatment

Group I (Ti), The subjects in Treatment Group II (T2) con-

sisted of eighteen elementary school teachers who were

selected from participants in a Region XI leadership training

workshop in June. The subjects in Control Group I (Ci) in-

cluded eighteen faculty instructors at Texas Womans University

97

School of Nursing in Dallas, Twenty elementary school teachers

constituted Control Group II (C2). C2 subjects were selected

from an intact master's level education class at North Texas

State University during the first summer session of 1971•

Treatment Group I participated in a three-day leader-

ship training workshop which utilized a team/group dynamics

training model which was led by specialists in group dynamics

and specialists in team teaching methodology. The workshop

was held May 24, 25, and 26 and was conducted at the Baylor

School of Nursing in Dallas. Subjects in Ti were given in-

formation regarding the dates, nature, and purposes of the

training workshop during a regular faculty meeting in April.

One week prior to the workshop, the instructors were admin-

istered the pre-testing instruments.

The team teaching workshop in which T^ participated

utilized an integration of didactic instruction and

applications of selected group dynamics principles throughout

the workshop.

On June 28, a one-day follow-up session was held for

members of Ti,

Treatment Group II (T2) participated in a three-day

team teaching workshop sponsored by the Region XI Education

Service Center in Port Worth, On June 15i 16, and 17. The

workshop was led by team teaching specialists from the

University of California in Los Angeles. The program con-

sisted primarily of didactic instructional information

presented by the specialists.

98

Comparison Group I (Cj) participated in the study by

completing the pre-and post-testing instruments at approxi-

mately the same time interval as subjects.

Comparison Group II (C£) completed the pre-and post-

testing measurements at approximately the same time interval

as T2 subjects.

Prior to the leadership training workshops, all in-

structors were administered the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale. the

Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory, and the Personal

Concept Scale. The subjects in T^ will also be given the

Evaluation Scale.

Following the leadership training workshops, all sub-

jects were readministered the Barrett-Lennard Relationship

Inventory, and the Personal Concept Scale. The participants

in T^ were also readministered the Evaluation Scale.

During the follow-up session conducted on June 28 for

Ti subjects, all Tj_ instructors were readministered the

Rokeach Dogmatism Scale, the Barrett-Lennard Relationship

Inventory, the Personal Concept Scale and the Evaluation

Scale. All instruments were handscored by the investigator,

and the data were treated statistically at the Data Pro-

cessing Center at North Texas State University. The Fisher's

t technique, the analysis of covariance and the t Test for

Correlated Means, were used to analyze the results.

99

Results and Interpretations

Hypothesis I predicted that the mean scores on the post-

test of the Relationship Inventory would be significantly

higher than the mean scores on the pre-test for Ti subjects.

The subjects who participated in the Ti workshop showed

statistically significant increases (greater than .05) in

three of the five dimensions on the RI—Empathy, Uncondition-

ally, and Total Score. The results indicated that the

group dynamics training model had a significant effect on

the instructor's perceived interpersonal relationships within

the training workshop,

Hypothesis II predicted that the mean scores on the

follow-up test of the RI would be significantly higher than

the mean scores on the post-test for Tj_ subjects. The sub-

jects who participated in the Ti workshop showed statistically

significant increases (greater than .10) in three of the

five dimensions of the RI—Empathy, Congruence and Total

Score. The results indicated that the group dynamics training

model had an extended effect on the Ti subjects' perceived

interpersonal relationships, even into their work situation.

Hypothesis III predicted that the mean scores on the

post-test of the RI would be significantly higher than the

mean scores on the pre-test for Ti subjects than for sub-

jects in i2, , and C2, The T^ participants showed

statistically significant increases (greater than .10) in

two of the five dimensions on the RI—Empathy and Total

100

Score. The results indicated that the group dynamics training

model generally had a positive influence on perceived inter-

personal relationships within the workshop as indicated

by the results on the Total Score, The Empathy score also

indicated that another positive influence of the Ti work-

shop was an increased awareness of other members of the

team.

Hypothesis IV predicted that the mean scores on the

post-test of the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale would be signifi-

cantly lower than the mean scores on the pre-test for T^

subjects. The results indicated that participation in the

team/group dynamics training workshop had no effect on the

degree of expressed dogmatism by the subjects.

Hypothesis V predicted that the mean scores on the

post-test of the Personal Concept Scale would be signifi-

cantly higher than the mean scores on the pre-test for Tg,

, and C2. The results indicated that there were no

significant differences in mean scores toward congruence

on the concepts measured by the PCS for the Treatment II

and Comparison subjects.

Hypothesis VI predicted that the mean scores on the

post-test of the PCS would be significantly higher than

the mean scores on the pre-test for . This indicated

that the subjects in the group dynamics training work-

shop showed statistically significant increases (greater

than .0001) in congruence between the concepts "I Am" and

MI Would Like To Be." This change indicates that the T^

101

leadership training workshop provided experiences which

resulted in increased harmony in the participant's "self"

and "ideal self" evaluations.

Hypothesis VII predicted that the mean scores on the

follow-up test of the PCS would be significantly higher

than the mean scores on the post-test for Ti, This result

indicated that there was no increase in congruence, at a

significant level, between the concepts "I Am" and "I Would

Like To Be" for the Tj_ participants when measured at the

follow-up session.

Hypothesis VIII predicted that the mean scores on the

post-test of the Evaluation Scale would be significantly

higher than the mean scores on the pre-test for T'i subjects.

The subjects who participated in the Ti leadership training

workshop showed statistically significant increases (greater

than .0001) in the category of "Self Evaluation." This

result indicated that the subjects felt that they had

assumed more responsibility for their total team's functioning.

This result further indicated more willingness to become

involved in the group's efforts. The "Colleague Evaluation"

scale remained relatively stable and the results indicated

a general consistency in evaluating colleagues contributions

to the total group efforts.

102

Hypothesis IX predicted that the adjusted mean scores on

the follow-up test of the ES would be significantly higher

than the adjusted mean scores on the post-test for Ti subjects.

Although the subjects who participated in the Ti leadership

training workshop showed no statistically significant in-

creases in the categories of "Self Evaluation" and "Colleague

Evaluation," there was more congruence between the post-test

and follow-up test adjusted mean scores than was evidenced

between the pre-test and post-test adjusted mean scores.

This indicated a more realistic self evaluation in relation

to one's position within the group, and the relative stability

of colleagues ratings of peers, even over an extended period

of time.

Conelusions

The following conclusions seem to be warranted from

this study:

1, Participants in the group dynamics training work-

shop showed greater over-all gains in perceived, positive,

interpersonal relationships and expressions for fellow staff

members than participants in the traditional training work-

shop and participants in the comparison groups.

2. Participants in the group dynamics training work-

shop showed greater over-all congruence between personal

concepts of "self" and "ideal self" than participants in

the traditional training workshop and participants in the

comparison groups.

103

3. Participants in the group dynamics training workshop

exhibited greater involvement in group activities and greater

interaction with group members in discussions than partici-

pants in the traditional training workshop.

Participants in the group dynamics training work-

shop exhibited increased congruence between self perceptions

of contributions to group functioning and colleagues' per-

ceptions of the individual's contributions to group functioning

within the team setting.

Recommendations

On the basis of the findings of this study, the following

recommendations are made:

1. That further research in this area extend the length

of the treatment period to determine whether extended training

experiences utilizing group dynamics training models would

result in greater gains in the dimensions under consideration.

2. That further research in this area consider utilizing

group dynamics training models within preparatory workshop

experiences to determine whether group interaction, small

group involvement and cooperative decision-making would

result in greater gains in the dimensions under consideration.

3. That further research in this area extend to other

professional and vocational disciplines to determine whether

group dynamics training models in other settings might result

in greater gains in the dimensions under consideration.

10/+

k. That further research in this area be considered to

determine the extent to which participants' beliefs, atti-

tudes, values and personality characteristics, change as

a result of participation in leadership training workshops.

5. That further research consider the utilization of

different measurements than those used in this study to

investigate the possibility of more sensitive testing

measurements for the dimensions under consideration,

6. That further training programs in the areas of

group dynamics theories, applications and techniques be

provided for leadership training specialists.

APPENDIX A

ROKEACH DOGMATISM SCALE

The following is a study of what the general public thinks and feels about a number of important social and personal questions. We have tried to cover many different and opposing points of view; you may find yourself agreeing strongly with some of the statements, disagreeing just as strongly with others, and perhaps uncertain about othersi whether you agree or disagree with any statement, you can be sure that many people feel the same as you do,

Mark each statement in the left margin according to how much you agree or disagree with it. Please mark every one,

Write 1, 2, 3» or -1, -2, -3, depending on how you feel in each case.

1s I AGREE A LITTLE -1s I DISAGREE A LITTLE

2s I AGREE ON THE WHOLE -2s I DISAGREE ON THE WHOLE

3' I AGREE VERY MUCH -3s I DISAGREE VERY MUCH

1. The United States and Russia have just about nothing in common,

2. The highest form of government is a democracy and the highest form of democracy is a government run by those who are the most intelligent.

3. Even though freedom of speech for all groups is a worth-while goal, it is unfortunately necessary to restrict the freedom of certain political groups.

It is only natural that a person would have a much better acquaintance with ideas he believes in than with ideas he opposes.

5. Man on his own is a helpless and miserable creature.

105

106

6. Fundamentally, the world we live in is a pretty lone-some place.

7. Most people just don't give a "damn" for others.

8. I'd like it if I could find someone who would tell me how to solve my personal problems.

9. It is only natural for a person to be rather fearful of the future.

10. There is so much to be done and so little time to do it in.

11. Once I get wound up in a heated discussion I just can't stop.

12. In a discussion I often find it necessary to repeat myself several times to make sure I am being understood.

13. In a heated discussion I generally become so absorbed in what I am going to say that I forget to listen to what the others are saying,

1̂ -. It is better to be a dead hero than to be a live coward.

15. While I don't like to admit this even to myself, my secret ambition is to become a great man, like Einstein, or Beethoven, or Shakespeare.

16. The main thing in life is for a person to want to do something important,

17. If given the chance, I would do something of great benefit to the world,

18. In the history of mankind there have probably been just a handful of really great thinkers.

19. There are a number of people I have come to hate because of the things they stand for,

20. A man who does not believe in some great cause has not really lived.

21. It is only when a person devotes himself to an ideal or cause that life becomes meaningful.

22. Of all the different philosophies which exist in this world there is probably only one which is correct.

10?

23. A person who gets enthusiastic about too many causes is likely to be a pretty "wishy-washy" sort of person.

2k. To compromise with our political opponents is dangerous because it usually leads to the betrayal of our own side.

25. When it comes to differences of opinion in religion we must be careful not to compromise with those who believe differently from the way we do.

26. In times like these, a person must be pretty selfish if he considers primarily his own happiness.

27. The worst crime a person could commit is to attack publicly the people who believe in the same thing he does.

28. In times like these it is often necessary to be more on guard against ideas put out by people or groups in one's own camp than by those in the opposing camp.

29. A group which tolerates too much difference of opinion among its own members cannot exist for long.

30. There are two kinds of people in this world? , those who are for the truth and those who are against the truth.

31. My blood boils whenever a person stubbornly refuses to admit he is wrong.

32. A person who thinks primarily of his own happiness is beneath contempt.

33. Most of the ideas which get printed nowadays aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

3^. In this complicated world of ours the only way we can know what's going on is to rely on leaders or experts who can be trusted.

35. It is often desirable to reserve judgment about what's going on until one has had a chance to hear the opinions of those one respects.

36. In the long run the best way to live is to pick friends and associates whose tastes and beliefs are the same as one's own.

37. The present is all too often full of unhappiness. It is only the future that counts.

108

38. If a man is to accomplish his mission in life, it is sometimes necessary to gamble "all or nothing at all,"

39. Unfortunately, a good many people with whom I have dis-cussed important social and moral problems don't really understand what's going on,

40. Most people just don't know what's good for them.

APPENDIX B

RELATIONSHIP INVENTORY

Below are listed a variety of ways that a person may find others behaving or feeling towards him (or her).

Please consider each statement with reference to the present relationship between your most recent faculty associations as a whole, and yourself.

Mark each statement in the left margin, according to how strongly you feel it is true, or not true, in this relationship. Please mark every one. Write 3» 2, 1, or -1, -2, or -3 to stand for the following answers.

3: Yes, I strongly feel that it is true.

2: Yes, I feel it is true.

Is Yes, I feel that is is probably true, or more true than untrue.

-Is No, I feel that it is probably untrue, or more untrue than true.

~2i No, I feel it is not true.

-3' No, I strongly feel that it is not true.

1. They respect me as a person.

2. They want to understand how I see things.

3. Their interest in me depends on the things I say or do.

4. They are comfortable and at ease with me.

5. They feel a true liking for me.

6. They may understand my words but they don't see the way I feel.

7. Whether I am feeling happy or unhappy with my-self makes no real difference to the way they feel about me.

109

110

8. I feel they put on a role or front with me.

9. They are impatient with me,

10, They nearly always know exactly what I mean,

11, Depending on my behaviour, they have a better opinion of me sometimes than they do at other times.

12, I feel that they are real and genuine with me.

13, I feel appreciated by them,

1̂ -, They look at what I do from their own point of view.

15. Their feeling toward me does not depend on how I am feeling toward them,

16. It makes them uneasy when I ask or talk about certain things,

17. They are indifferent to me.

18. They usually sense or realize what I am feeling.

19. They want me to be a particular kind of person,

20. I nearly always feel that what they say expresses exactly what they are feeling and thinking at that time,

21. They find me rather dull and uninteresting.

22. Their attitudes toward some of the things I do or say prevent them from understanding me.

23. I can be (or could be) openly critical or appreciative of them without really making them feel any differently about me.

Zk. They want me to think that they like me or under-stand me more than they really" do.

25. They care for me.

26. Sometimes they think that I feel a certain way, because it's the way they feel.

27. They like certain things about me, and there are other things they do not like.

Ill

28. They do not avoid anything that is important for our relationship.

29. I feel that they disapprove of me.

30. They realize what I mean even when I have difficulty in saying it,

31. Their attitude toward rne stays the same: they are not pleased with me sometimes and critical or disappointed at other times.

32. Sometimes they are not at all comfortable but we go on, outwardly ignoring it,

33• They just tolerate me.

34-. They usually understand the whole of what I mean.

35. If I show that I am angry with them they become hurt or angry with me, too,

36. They express their true impressions and feelings with me,

37. They are friendly and warm with me.

38. They just take no notice of some things that I think or feel,

39. How much they like or dislike me is not altered by anything that I tell them about myself,

40. At times I sense that they are not aware of what they are really feeling.

41. I feel that they really value me,

42. They appreciate exactly how the things I ex-perience feel to me.

43. They approve of some things I do, and plainly disapprove of other things.

44. They are willing to express whatever they actually have in mind with me, including any feelings about themselves or about me.

45. They don't like me for myself.

112

46. At times they think that I feel a lot more strongly about a particular thing than I really do.

47. Whether I am in good spirits or feeling upset does not make them feel any more or less appreciative of me.

48. They are openly themselves with me.

49. I seem to irritate and bother them.

50. They do not realize how sensitive I am about some of the things we discuss.

51. Whether the ideas and feelings I express are "good" or "bad" seems to make no difference to the way they feel towards me.

52. There are times when I feel that their outward response to me is quite different from the way they feel underneath,

53. At times they feel contempt for me.

54. They understand me.

55• Sometimes I am more worthwhile in their eyes than I am at other times,

56. I have not felt that they try to hide from them-selves anything that they feel with me.

57. They are truly interested in me.

58. Their response to me is usually so fixed and auto-matic that I don't really get through to them.

59. I don't think that anything I say or do actually changes the way they feel toward me,

60. What they say to me often gives a wrong impression of their whole thought or feeling at the time,

61. They feel deep affection for me.

62. When I am hurt or upset they can recognize my feelings exactly, without becoming upset them-selves ,

113

63. What other people think of me does (or would, if they knew) affect the way they feel toward me.

6^, I believe that they have feelings they do not tell me about that are causing difficulties be-tween us.

APPENDIX C

PERSONAL CONCEPT SCALE

INSTRUCTIONS

The purpose of this scale is to identify the meaning that various concepts have for you by having you rate them against a series of descriptive scales. Place an "x" on each line according to what the concept means to you, For example t

If you consider yourself very talkative, you would place your "x" as follows!

talkative x i s : : __j j quiet

If you feel you are mostly quiet, you would mark as follows:

talkative__ s_ t _s ; x : quiet

If you see yourself as slightly talkative, mark this ways

talkative _t t x t t i » quiet

If you think you are equally talkative and quiet, mark this wayt

talkative^ i s : x ; j s quiet

Be sure you mark every scale. Do not skip any. Never put more than one "x" on a single line. Make each item a separate and independent judgment. Place your marks in the middle of the space.

Your first impressions are generally the most accurate, so work quickly, but do not be careless.

I ! i

114

115

plain,

feminine_

warm_

unaware_

tense,

deep,

certain

accepted

cautious

talkative

close

disturbed,

active,

down,

powerful,

following,

loose,

early,

conservative,

clear

I AM

x i s : .sexy

.masculine

_cool

.aware

jrelaxed

^shallow

.uncertain

.rejected

.adventure s ome

_quiet

.distant

contented

_passive

_up

_weak

_leading

_tight

_late

_liberal

_hazy

I WOULD LIKE TO BE

116

plain,

feminine,

warm

unaware,

tense,

deep_

certain,

accepted,

cautious,

talkative,

close,

disturbed,

active,

down_

powerful,

following,

loose_

early_

conservative,

clear

_sexy

_masculine

_cool

_aware

,relaxed

shallow

ûncertain

_re jected

_adventuresome

_quiet

_distant

contented

_passive

_up

weak

_leading

_tight

_late

JLiberal

_hazy

APPENDIX D

EVALUATION SCALE (SELF)

ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACHIEVING GROUP GOALS

6 5

IS UNCONCERNED ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT ALL MEMBERS MAKE THEIR FAIR SHARE OF CONTRIBUTIONS

IS INDIFFERENT OR RESISTENT TO ASSUMING RESPONSIBILITY FOR GROUP'S GOALS

TRYS TO SEE THAT EVERYONE GETS A FAIR CHANCE TO MAKE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE GROUP

MAKES SHARP, PERTINENT STATEMENTS

STATEMENTS TEND TO BE VAGUE AND IRRELEVANT

CAN'POINT OUT APPLICATIONS OR IDEAS

THINKS ON ABSTRACT LEVEL WITH LITTLE ABILITY TO BE SPECIFIC

SHOWS BROAD RANGE OF INTERESTS AND APPRECIATIONS

SHOWS NARROW INTEREST RANGE AND SINGLE-MINDEDNESS

5

IS SPONTANEOUS AND FORTHRIGHT IN EXPRESSIONS OF THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS

IS SHY AND INHIBITED IN EXPRESSING THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS

IS FRIENDLY, OUT-GOING AND RESPONSIVE TOWARD OTHERS

IS RESERVED, CONSTRAINED TOWARD OTHERS

117

118

IS INGRATIATING, EAGER TO PLEASE AND TO "DO WHAT IS RIGHT"

SHOWS FORTHRIGHTNESS, INDEPENDENCE AND SELF-AUTONOMY

SHOWS SELF-CENTERED AND SUBJECTIVELY ORIENTED ATTITUDES

SHOWS GROUP-CENTERED AND OBJECTIVELY ORIENTED ATTITUDES

SHOWS ABILITIES TO EFFECTIVELY INFLUENCE OTHERS

SHOWS LITTLE CAPACITY FOR EFFECTIVE INFLUENCES ON OTHERS

SHOWS INDIFFERENCE OR DIS-TRACTED ATTENTION TO THOSE WISHING TO COMMUNICATE WITH HIM

LISTENS ATTENTIVELY TO THOSE WISHING TO COMMUNICATE WITH HIM

SHOWS DEFENSIVENESS TOWARD CRITICISM

SHOWS POSITIVE ATTITUDES TOWARD CRITICISM

SHOWS ATTITUDES OF CONTINUOUS INQUIRY AND SEARCHING

SHOWS CLOSED-MINDEDNESS AND RIGIDITY

APPENDIX E

You are requested to complete this evaluation form on_ . 9

COLLEAGUE EVALUATION SCALE

ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACHIEVING GROUP GOALS

IS INDIFFERENT OR RESISTENT TO ASSUMING RESPONSIBILITY FOR GROUP'S GOALS

IS UNCONCERNED ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT ALL MEMBERS MAKE THEIR FAIR SHARE OF CONTRIBUTIONS

MAKES SHARP, PERTINENT STATEMENTS

TRYS TO SEE THAT EVERYONE GETS A FAIR CHANCE TO MAKE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE GROUP

5

STATEMENTS TEND TO BE VAGUE AND IRRELEVANT

CAN POINT OUT APPLICATIONS OR IDEAS

THINKS ON ABSTRACT LEVEL > WITH LITTLE ABILITY TO BE SPECIFIC

SHOWS BROAD RANGE OF INTERESTS AND APPRECIATIONS

SHOWS NARROW INTEREST RANGE AND SINGLE-MINDEDNESS

IS SPONTANEOUS AND FORTHRIGHT IN EXPRESSIONS OF THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS

6

IS FRIENDLY, OUT-GOING AND RESPONSIVE TOWARD OTHERS

IS SHY AND INHIBITED IN EXPRESSING THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS

IS RESERVED, CONSTRAINED TOWARD OTHERS

4

119

120

IS INGRATIATING, EAGER TO PLEASE AND TO "DO WHAT IS RIGHT"

SHOWS FORTHRIGHTNESS, INDEPENDENCE AND SELF-AUTONOMY

SHOWS SELF-CENTERED AND SUBJECTIVELY ORIENTED ATTITUDES

SHOWS GROUP-CENTERED AND OBJECTIVELY ORIENTED ATTITUDES

SHOWS ABILITIES TO EFFECTIVELY INFLUENCE OTHERS

SHOWS LITTLE CAPACITY FOR EFFECTIVE INFLUENCES ON OTHERS

5

SHOWS INDIFFERENCE OR DIS-TRACTED ATTENTION TO THOSE WISHING TO COMMUNICATE WITH HIM

LISTENS ATTENTIVELY TO THOSE WISHING TO COMMUNICATE WITH HIM

SHOWS DEFENSIVENESS TOWARD CRITICISM

SHOWS POSITIVE ATTITUDES TOWARD CRITICISM

SHOWS ATTITUDES OF CON-TINUOUS INQUIRY AND SEARCHING

SHOWS C LOSED-MINDEDNESS AND RIGIDITY

2

APPENDIX F

WHO WILL LIVE

SITUATION;

PROBLEM-.

Below are listed the only known survivors of the final World War. The earth was depopulated by a human-specific bacteriological warfare. All other life v/as unaffected by the germs and all buildings remain standing, intact. The only reason that the group survived v/as that they were having a meeting in a deep bunker, sealed from within, during the initial attack. Enough was learned about the germ to predict its viability at fourteen months.

It is now two months after the initial and final attack. By stretching to the utmost, the supplies in the bunker will last only two more months for the entire group. By calculation, extending food and water only five people can live to return to the surface. There is no way for more than five to live using the available stored food, water, and air. Disposal facilities are available for the ones who die.

TASKs The group must decide which of the people listed below should be deleted from the list. Only five can be the sole survivors. The group must decide who will live.

Present survivors are s

1. You 9. An intelligent female j movie star

2. An accountant 10. A famous novelist

3. An accountant's pregnant wife •

i

4. A nurse

5. A Negro medical student

6. A biochemist

7. A clergyman

8. An armed policeman

121

APPENDIX G

CASE STUDIES

WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THESE CHILDREN?

1, As a young child this boy did not like to play with other children. He was slow in learning to talk--very timid. His father was stern and considered the boy dull. He was sent to many boarding schools—considered a dreamer. The boy hates school, considers school like being in the army, is awkward and clumsy on the playground and the other children will not play with him. He likes to take long solitary walks. He is considered rebellious by both parents and teachers. He is kept after school a great deal because of ill-prepared lessons. Finally expelled from high school because he upset the class— didn't show proper respect to teachers. Most teachers consider him a slow pupil,

2, This girl was orphaned at the age of 10—raised by a very strict grandmother. She is very shy and plain (described as an ugly duckling). The grandmother will not allow her to have friends her own age. The girl is required to take a cold bath each morning and wear heavy undergarments from fall to spring. Her clothes are not the latest style and is very embarrassed. She is forced to wear a steel brace so that her posture will be correct. The grandmother did not encourage her in school and censors everything the girl reads.

3, This boy was raised by a nurse-maid. The mother and father are too busy to see him except once in a while. Described as impulsive and naughty. His early schooling was with a governess but later"he is sent to a boarding school because the governess can not handle him. Always fought against rules and regulations. Parents considered him difficult. The boy hates boarding school, disliked doing lessons and playing games. Developed a stammer. Always up to some trick—rebelling against some established rule—described as sickly—considered slow by teachers. Not popular with his peer group—preferred older people.

122

APPENDIX H

TABLE X

PRE-TEST, POST-TEST MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF TREATMENT GROUP II AND

COMPARISON GROUPS ON THE PERSONAL CONCEPT SCALE

Group Pre-Test Post--Test

Adjusted Mean Group Mean S . D . Mean S.D. Adjusted Mean

?2 5 . 2 0 3 . ^ 1 2 . 1 5 2 . 1 5 1 , 6 6

Cl 2 , 8 0 2 . ^ 8 1 . 7 5 .96 2 . 1 3

c 2 3 . 5 5 5 . 9 9 Z.kk 3 . 0 7 2 . 5 5

123

APPENDIX I

TABLE XI

PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF RELATIONSHIP INVENTORY

SCORES

Area Pre-T 2St Post-T est

Area Group Mean S.D. Mean S.D.

Empathy * 1 T 2

CI C2

. 3 0 4 6 . 4 5 4 9 . 6 6 5 1 . 0 0

1 2 . 5 5 1 2 , 0 9 1 3 . 4 4 1 4 . 8 6

4 5 . 8 5 4 4 , 6 0 4 9 . 5 0 5 3 . 9 5

9 . 2 4 1 2 . 9 9 1 2 . 2 1 13 M

Regard TL T 2

CL P2

5 6 . 3 0 61 ,85 6 2 . 3 8 66 ,60

1 1 . 1 7 1 3 . 9 2 1 3 . 0 4 1 3 . 3 9

5 7 . 0 5 5 9 . 1 5 58,66 65 .25

1 0 . 2 3 1 5 . 1 8 1 5 . 3 0

9 . 7 1

Congru-ence

*1

C I C 2

4 1 . 3 0 4 4 . 9 0 4 8 . 7 7 4 5 . 0 0

1 7 . 4 8 9 . 6 0

1 5 . 4 8 6 . 0 1

4 4 . 2 5 43 .60 4 9 . 5 0 4 8 . 8 0

1 1 . 3 5 1 0 . 0 8 1 0 . 3 4

8 . 6 4

Uncon-ditional-l y

T 1 T 2

c 1 C 2

3 6 . 3 5 4 0 . 6 0 4 4 . 7 7 4 2 . 3 5

1 0 . 9 6 1 0 . 9 2 1 0 . 8 2 1 0 . 9 9

4 0 . 5 5 ^ 3 . 0 5 4 0 . 1 6 4 5 . 1 5

1 0 . 0 9 1 3 . 0 9 1 4 . 6 3 1 3 , 1 1

Total Score

TL ? 2 CL C 2

1 7 5 . 7 5 1 9 3 . 8 0 2 0 5 . 7 7 1 0 4 . 9 5

4 1 . 7 4 3 8 . 4 7 3 9 . 7 9 3 6 . 1 7

187.30 1 9 0 . 6 0 1 9 7 . 9 4 2 1 2 . 1 5

3 4 . 9 2 41 .76 4 2 . 8 1 3 5 . 2 2

1 2 4

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Asch, S, E,, "Effects of Group Pressure Upon the Modification and Distortion of Judgments," Groups. Leadership, and Men, edited "by H, Guetzkow, Pittsburgh, Carnegie Press, 1951.

Beggs, David W,, editor. Team Teachingt Bold New Venture, Indianapolis, Unified College Press,1964.

Bennett, Margaret E,, Guidance and Counseling in Groups, New York, McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc., 19^3•

Berg, Robert C, and James A. Johnson, Group Counselingt A Sourcebook of Theory and Practice. Fort Worth, Texas, American Continental Publishing Company, Inc., 1971,

Bonney, Merl E,, The Normal Personality. Berkeley, McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 19^9•

t

Cartwright, Dorwin and Alvin Zander, Group Dynamics s Re-search and Theory. New York, Harper and Row, 1968.

Chamberlin, Leslie J,, Team Teaching: Organization and Ad-ministration. Columbia, Missouri, C. E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1969.

Darling, D. W,, The Effect of Team Teaching on Teachers. Detroit, Wayne State University Press, 1^2.

Davis, Harold S,, How to Organize an Effective Team Teaching Program. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 1966.

Gelinas, Agnes, Nursing and Nursing Education. New York, The Commonwealth Fund, 1946,

Cough, Harrison G., The California Psychological Inventory Manual. Palo Alto, Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., W . "

Hanslovsky, Glenda, Sue Moyer and Helen Wagner, Why Team Columbus, Ohio, C. E. Merrill Publishing Company,

Heather, Glen, "Research in Team Teaching,"Team Teaching. edited by Judson T. Shaplin, New York, Harper and Row,1964.

125

126

Inglis, C. R., "Group Dynamics: Boon or Bane?"Group Counselingt A Source Rook of Theory and Practice. Fort Worth. Texas, edited by Robert C. Berg and James A, Johnson,'American Continental Publishing Company, Inc., 1971.

Johnson, Robert H, and John J, Hunt, R^ for Team Teaching, Minneapolis, Burgess Publishing Company, 1968,

Kemp, C. Gratton, Perspectives on the Group Process: A Foundation for Counseling with Groups, Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1970.

Knowled, Malcolm Shepherd, Introduction to Group Dynamics, New York, Association Press, 1965T

Lewin, Kurt, "Group Decision and Social Change," Readings in Social Change, edited by Theodore Newcomb and J, "Hartley, New York, Henry Holt Company, 19^7#

Lippitt, Ronald, Jeanne Watson, and B, Westley, The Dynamics of Change. New York, Harcourt Brace and World, 1958.

Lobb, M, Delbert, The Practical Aspects of Team Teaching, San Francisco, Fearon Publishing Company, 19^.

Lor tic, Dan C ,, "The Teacher and Team Teachings 'Suggestions for Long-Range Research," Team Teaching, edited by Judson T, Shaplin, New York, Harper and Row, 196k,

Medill, Bair and Richard G. Woodward, Team Teaching in Action. Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 19^.

Osgood, Charles E., George J, Suci, and Percy H, Tannenbaum, "The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana, University of Illinois Press, 19o7.

Peterson, Carl H,, Effective Team Teaching: The Easton Area High School Program. New York, Parker Publishing Compnay, 1966.

Rokeach, Milton, The Open and Closed Mind. New York, Basic Books, i960,

Shaplin, Judson T. and Henry F. Olds,Jr. editors, Team Teaching. New York, Harper and Row, 196^.

Sherif, Muzafer, Intergroup Relations and Leadership Approaches arid Research in Industrial. Ethnic. Cultural and. Political Areas. New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 1962."

Harper, 19^8, * T*16 Psychology of Social Norms, New York,

127

Snider, James G, and Charles E, Osgood, Semantic Differential Technique t A Sourcebook. Chicago, Aldine Publishing Company, 1969.

Sundberg, Norman D. and Leona E, Tyler, Clinical Psychology. An Introduction to Research and Practice. New York, Meredith Publishing Company, 1962.

Trump, J, Lloyd and Dorsey Baynham, Focus on Change i Guide to "Better Schools. Chicago, Rand McNally, 19of.

Articles

Aden, R. C,, "Team Teaching at North Texas State University, 1960-1961 ," Peabody Journal of Education. XXXIX (March, 1 9 6 2 ) , 2 8 3 - 2 8 ? . ~

"Administrative Developments, Discussion Groups, and Team Teaching," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin. XLVI (October, 1962X 53.

Allen, Virginia 0., "Improving Communications," Nursing Out-look, X (May, 1 9 6 2 ) , 523.

"An Administrator's Guide to Team Teaching," Educational Executive Overview. I (April, 1 9 6 3 ) , 54-55.

Anderson, Robert H,, "Team Teaching," National Education Association Journal. L (March, 1 9 6 1 ) , 5 2 - 5 5 ,

"Team Teaching with Examples of Project," National Education Association Journal. L (April, 1961 ) , 52-54«

Arnold, W. E., "Is Team Teaching the Answer?" School and Society. XCI (December, 19o3), 4-07-409,

Asch, S, E., "Studies in the Principles of Judgments and Attitudess II. Determination of Judgments by Ego Standards," Journal of Social Psychology. XII (November, 1940), ^33-4657^

Axelrod, Joseph, "Group Dynamics, Non-Directive Therapy, and College Teaching," Journal of Higher Education. XXVI (April, 1955), 200-207. ~

Back, Kurt, "The Exertion of Influence Through Social Com-munication," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. XLV (January, 1 9 5 1 ) , 9-1^

Barr, A. S, and R, E. Jones, "The Measurement and Prediction of Teacher Efficiency,"Review of Educational Research, XXVIII (June, 1958)» 258-26^7

128

Bartlett, Alton, "Changing Behavior as a Means to Increased Efficiency," Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. III (Spring, 1967) ,"331-401.

Becker, Harrv A., "Team Teaching," Instructor. LXXI (June, 1 9 6 2 ) , 4 3 - 4 5 .

Beggs, David W, and Edward G, Buffie, "The Pitfalls and Promise of Large Group Instruction," American School Board Journal. CXLVIII (May, 1964), 21-22.

Borg, Walter R., "Teacher Effectiveness in Team Teaching," Journal of Experimental Education. XXXV (September, 1967),65-70.

Brown, Charles I,, "Make It A Team Teaching Venture," Clearing House. XXXVII (February, 1963), 3^0-3^2.

Brownell, John A, and Harris A. Taylor, "Theoretical Per-spectives for Teaching Teams," Phi Delta- Kappan, XLIII (June, 1962), 150-1577

Bush, Robert N., "Editorial! A Searching Appraisal of New Developments," Journal of Secondary Education. XXXVII (October, 1962)", 322 .

Carlin, Philip M., "A Current Appraisal of Team Teaching," Education. LXXXV (February, 1965) • 3^8-353•

Cartwright, Dorwin, "Achieving Change in People 1 Some Applications of Group Dynamics Theory," Human Relations. IV (1951), 381-392.

Clement, Stanley L., "More Time for Teaching," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin. XLVI (December, 1962), 5^-59.

Corrigan, Dean and Robert Hynes, "What Have We Learned From Team Teaching?" Social Education. XXVIII (April, 1964), 205-208.

Coyne, Lolafaye and Philip S, Holzman, "Three Equivalent Forms of a Semantic Differential Inventory," Educational and Psychological Measurement. XXVI (Autumn, 195ETi 674.

Cromer, Lyla, Rheba de Tornyay, and Marion McDermott, "Learning To Do Team Teaching," Nursing Outlook. XVIII (September, 1970), 44-45.

129

Cunningham, Luvern L., "Keys to Team Teaching," Overview. I (October, i 9 6 0 ) , 54-55.

"Team Teaching: Where Do We Stand?" Administrator's Notebook, VIII (April, i 9 6 0 ) , 1-4.

, "Viewing Change in School Organizations," Administrator's Notebook. XI (September, 1962), 1-4,

Darling, D, W,f "Planning for Team Teaching," Education, LXXXV (February, 19&5), 333-336.

"Team Teaching: Wisconsin Improvement Pro-gram, " National Education Association Journal, LIV LIV (May, 19337, 24-25.

Davis, 0. L., "Grouping for Instruction: Some Perspectives," Educational Forum, XXIV (January, 1960), 209-216.

Dean, Steward E., "Team Teaching: A Review," School Life. XLIV (September, 1 9 6 1 ) , 5*

Dittes, J, E, and H, B. Gerard, "Effects of Different Con-ditions of Acceptance Upon Conformity to Group Norms," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LIII (April, 195577-100-107.

Dix, J, P., "Team Teaching Requires Team Spirit," School and Community. LXIX (November, 1962), 27.

Doise, Willem, "Intergroup Relations and Polarizations of Individual and Collective Judgments," Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology. XII (June, 1 9 6 9 ) , 136-143."

Drummond, Harold D., "Team Teaching: An Assessment," Educational Leadership. XIX (December, 1 9 6 1 ) , 160 .

Durrell, Donald 0,, "Implementing and Evaluating Pupil-Team Learning Plans," Journal of Educational Sociology, XXXIV (April, 1961), 360~3£57~

Dymond, R. F., "Personality and Empathy," Journal of Con-sulting Psychology. XIV(1950), 3^3-350.

Egner, Robert, "Group Dynamics and the Role of Authority in Higher Education," J ournal of Educational Sociology. XXXI (December, 1957). 154-157.

Elliott, Richard Wt( "Team Teaching: Effective In-Service Training," American School Board Journal, CXLIV (February. 1962), 19.

130

Fea, H, R,, "Team Teachings Psychological Implications," Clearing House, XLIV (November, 1 9 6 8 ) , 177-179.

Festinger, Leon, J. Torrey, and B. Willerman, "Self-Evaluation as a Function of Attraction to the Group," Human Rela-tions. II (1954), 161-174.

Ford, LeRoy H., Jr., and Murray Meisels, "Social Desirability and the Semantic Differential," Educational and Psycho-logical Measurement. XXV (Summer, 1965)1 465-475.

Fox, David, Lorraine K, Diamond, Ruth C. Walsh, Lucille Knopf, and Jean Jodgin, "Characteristics of Basic Nursing Faculty," Nursing Outlook. XII (December, 1964), 40-44.

Fraenkel, Jack and Richard E, Gross, "Team Teachings A Note of Caution Is In Order," National Education Association Journal, LVI (April, 1967), 16-17,

Friedlander, Frank, "The Primacy of Trust As A Facilitator of Further Group Accomplishment," Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. VI (December, 1970), 387-400.

Gamhold, Willard J., "The Modern Teacher and New Media of Instruction," Education. LXXXII (October, 1 9 6 2 ) , 6 7 - 7 0 .

Garrett, W, S,, "Prediction of Academic Success in a School of Nursing," Personnel and Guidance Journal. XXXVIII (February, i 9 6 0 ) , 500 -503 ,

Geitgey, Doris A., "Some Thoughts on Team Teaching in Nursing Education," Nursing Outlook. X (October, 1 9 6 7 ) , 6 6 - 6 8 .

Georgiades, W,, J. R. Fraenkel, and R. E. Gross, "Team Teaching," National Education Association Journal. LVI (April, 196?7TT4-17. " ~

Gilchrist, Robert S., "Promising Practices in Education," Phi Delta Kappan. XLI (March, i 9 6 0 ) , 2 6 9 - 2 7 4 .

Harty, Margaret B., "Team Teaching," Nursing Outlook. XI (January, 19 6 3 ) , 5 9 - 6 1 .

Heller, Melvin P. and Elizabeth Belford, "Hierarchy in Team Teaching," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin. XLVI (December, 1 9 6 2 ) , 59-64,

77—— : » "Team Teaching and otaff Utilization in Ridgewood High School," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin. XLVI (January, 1 9 6 2 ) , 105-122.

131

Hilgard, E, R,, "Human Dimension in College Teaching," National Education Association Journal. LIV (September, 19^5), 43-45.

Hooper, Ned E., "The Training Process for Team Teaching," Journal of Teacher Education. XIV (June, 19&3)» *77•

Hoppach, Ann, "Team Teachings Form Without Substance," National Education Association Journal, L (April, 1961) , 47-48.

Husek, T. R, and M, C, Wittrock, "The Dimensions of Attitudes Toward Teachers as Measured by the Semantic Differential," Journal of Educational Psychology, LIII (October, 1962) , 2 0 9 - 2 1 3 .

Ingram, J, F,, "Time for Team Teaching," American Vocational Journal, XLII (February, 1967), 2.

Jackson, J, M,, "A Space for Conceptualizing Personal-Group Relationships," Human Relations. XII (1959)1 3-15•

Kelly, E. T,, "Why Team Teaching Fails," Instructor, LXXVI (April, 1967), 25-26.

King, Arthur R., Jr., "Planning for Team Teaching's The Human Considerations," California J ournal of Secondary Education. XXXVII (October, 1962 ), 3&2-y&3 •

Kramer, Marlene, "Team Teaching Is More Than Team Planning," Nursing Outlook, XVI (July, 1968) , 47-50.

Lambert, Philip, "Team Teaching for Today's World," Teachers College Record. LXIV (March, 1963) , 44-50,

Layton, Sister Mary Michele, "How Instructors* Attitudes Affect Students," Nurs ing Outlook. XVII (January, 1969) , 27-29.

Lewin, Kurt, "Frontiers in Group Dynamics; Concept, Method, and Reality in Social Science," Human Relations. I (1947), 5-42.

., Ronald Lippitt, and Ralph K. White, "Patterns of Aggressive Behavior in Experimentally Created Social Climates," Journal of Social Psychology. X (May, 1939), 271-299.

Lippitt, Ronald, "Field Theory and Experiments in Social Psychology: Authoritarian and Democratic Group Atmosphere," American Journal of Sociology, XL (Julv. 1939), 24-49.

132

Little, D. F. and B. S. Walker, "Factor Analysis of the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory," Journal of Coun-seling Psychology, XVI (November, 1969)» 516-521.

Lott, Bernice E, and A, J, Lott, "The Formation of Positive Attitudes Toward Group Members," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LXI (September, 19^0), 297-300*

Mahoney, William M,, "Try Co-ordinate Teaching," American School Board Journal. CXXXIX (November, 195977 13-1^»

Mascovic, Serop and Marisa Zavalloni, "The Group As A Polarizer of Attitudes," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, XII (June, 1969T, 125-135"•

Mauksch, H, 0,, "Becoming a Nurses A Selective View," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. CCCXLVI (MiFch, 1963), 88-98.

McKeachie, W, J,, "Current Research on Teacher Effectiveness," Improving College and University Teaching. X (Winter, 1962), 15-19.

Merei, Ferenc, "Group Leadership and Institutionalization," Human Relations, II (19^9), 23-29.

Meyer, J. A., "Group Gropes Problem of Team Teaching," Clearing House, XLII (February, 1968), 362-364.

Michael, Lloyd S., "Team Teaching," National Association o£ Secondary School Principals Bulletin. XLVII (May, 19S3),

Mitchell, Y/anda B., "Why Try Team Teaching?" National Asso-ciation of Secondary School Principals Bulletin. XLVI (January, 1962)7 2^7-252.

Morlan, John E., "Think Twice About Team Teaching," Instructor. LXXII (September, 1963), 65, 72-73, 1^2.

Morse, Arthur D., "Open Minds and Flexible Schools," Saturday Review. XLIII (September, i960), 67-68, 90-92.

Nelson, Jack L., Robert 0t Hahn, and Gertrude Robinson, "Team Teaching the New Approach," Journal of Teacher Education. XII (September, 1961), 38O-382.

and G. A, Robinson, "Teacher Education Through Team Teaching," School and Society. XCI (December, 1963), 409-^10.

133

Ninnicht, Glendon P,, "A Second Look at Team Teaching," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, XLYI~T"Dec ember, 19&2), 6̂ -̂ 69,

Norton, Monte S., "Approaches to Team Teaching," National Association of Secondary; School Principals Bulletin, XLIV ̂ October,' *1960), 89-92. ~

Ohm, Robert I)., "Toward A Rationale for Team Teaching," Administrators Notebook. IX (March, 1961) , 1-4.

Pepitone, Albert and George Reichling, "Group Cohesiveness and the Expression of Hostility," Human Relations. VIII (1955), 327-339.

Perkins, H. V., "Climate Influences Group Learning," Journal of Educational Research. XL'v (October, 1951)» 115-119.

Peterson, Carl H,, "Team Teaching in the High School," Education. LXXXV (February, 19^5)» 3^2-3^7.

Pitruzzello, Philip R., "A Report on Team Teaching," Clearing House. XXXVI (February, 1962), 333-336.

Polos, Nicholas C., "Team Teachings Past, Present, and Future," Clearing House. XXXIX (April, 1965) , ^56-^58.

Powell, M, G., "Comparisons of Self-Ratings, Peer Ratings, and Expert's Ratings of Personality Adjustment," Educational and Psychological Measurement, VIII (19^8) 225-23^n

Preston, M. G, and R. K, Heintz, "Effects of Participatory Versus Supervisory Leadership on Group Judgment," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. XLV (Julv. 19597. 3^5-355.

Reddin, J., "How To Change Things," Executive Magazine, I (June, 1969) , 2 2 - 2 6 .

Rogers, Carl R., "The Necessary and Sufficient Conditions of Therapeutic Personality Change," Journal of Counsultlng Psychology. XXI (April, 1957). 9^-103.

Rokeach, Milton, "The Nature and Meaning of Dogmatism," Psychological Review. LXI (May, 195*0 > 19^-20^.

Schacter, Stanly, Norris Ellertson, Dorothy McBride, and Doris Gregory, "An Experimental Study of Cohesiveness and Productivity," Human Relations (1951), 229-238.

134

Schmuch, Richard A., Philip J. Runkel, and Daniel Langmeyer, "Improving Organizational Problem Solving in a School Faculty," Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. V (December, 19697, 455-"58l~̂

Scutz, W, C., "What Makes Groups Productive?" Human Relations. VIII (November, 1955). 429-465.

Seagoe, M, V,, "Factors Influencing the Selection of Asso-ciates," Journal of Educational Research, XXVII (September. 1933), 32-40. "

Shaplin, JudsonT., "Cooperative Teachings Definitions and Organizational Analysis," Education Digest, XXX (Aoril. 1965), 25-28.

Shawyer, 0. E., "Team Teachings How Successful Is It?" Clearing House, XLIII (September, 1968), 21-26.

Siegel, Alberta Engvall and Sidney Siegel, "Reference Groups, Membership Groups, and Attitude Change," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. LV (November. 1 Q^7T. 3 ^ 0 ^ 5 7

Sorenson, A. Garth, T. R. Husek, and Y. U. Constance, "Divergent Concepts of Teacher Roless An Approach to the Measurement of Teacher Effectiveness," Journal

Educational Psychology. LIV (December, 1963), 287-294 •

Stotland, Ezra and Nickolas B, Cottrell, "Group Interaction and Perceived Similarities of Members," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. LVI (November, loto), ' 335-340.

Strickland, Lloyd H., Edward E. Jones, and William P. Smith, Effects of Group Support on the Evaluation of an

Antagonist," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psynhnlnffv, LXI (July, I9S0T, 73-81. ^ ^

"Symposium Using Team Teaching to Individualize Instruction," * Journal of Secondary Education. XXXVI (November, I960. 414-446. •

"Team Teachings Proceed With Caution," Editorial, Clearing House. XXXIX (January, 1965), 315.

Trump,_J, Lloyd, "What Is Team Teaching?" Education. LXXXV (February, 1965), 327-332.

135

Vacchiano, R. B., P. S. Strauss, and D, C, Scheffman, "Personality Correlates of Dogmatism',' Journal of Con-sulting and Clinical Psychology. XXXII (February, 1968), 83-85.

Walker, B, S, and D, F, Little, "Factor Analysis of the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory," Journal of Counseling Psychology. XVI (November, 19&95l"&-521.

Wayne, Dora, "School Nursing and Team Teaching," Nursing. Outlook. XVII (July, 1969), 3?.

Weiss, Thomas M, and Mary Scott Morris, "A Critique of.the Team Approach," Education Forum. XXIV (January, i960), 207-208.

Wigderson, Harry I., "Team Teaching in American Education," Education. LXXXV (February, 1965), 32.3-326.

Woolbridge, James H, and Frank E, Mayer, "Building for Team Teaching," Ohio Schools, XL (May, 1962), 15.

Zagona, S, V, and L. A. Zurcher, "Notes on the Reliability and Validity of the Dogmatism Scale," Psychological Reports. XVI (June, 1965), 123^-1236.

Zander, Alvin, "Strength of Group and Desire for Attainable Group Aspirations," Journal of Personality. XXXIII (March, 1965), 122-139.

and H. Meadow, "Individual and Group Levels of Aspiration," Human Relations. XVI (August, 1965), 273-287.

Unpublished Materials .

Anderson, James F,, "The Relationship Between Leadership Training in Group Dynamics and the Development of Groups Among Disadvantaged Youth," unpublished doctoral disser-tation, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, 1968.

Anderson, Sharon Jane, "Changes in Attitudes, Personality, and Effectiveness of Counselor Trainees in Counseling Practicums," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, North Texas State University, Denton, Texas, 1968.

Barrett-Lennard, G. T., Technical Note on the 6^-Item Re-vision of the Relationship Inventory. Ontario, Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, 1969.

136

t "The Relationship Inventoryi Re-vision Process," paper delivered at the 1963 Annual Conference of the British Psychological Society, Australian Branch.

and L. N, Jewell, "A Selection of Reported Studies Using the Relationship Inventory," unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Ontario, 1966.

Bidwell, Wilma Walker, "A Study of Openness as a Factor in the Human Relations Training of Pre-Service Teachers," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 1966.

Grigsby, David A., "The Effects of Student Teaching Upon Attitudinal Characteristics Considered Basic for Effective Counselors," unpublished doctoral disser-tation, Department of Education, North Texas State University, Denton, Texas, 1970.

Lynch, Ann Quarterman, "The Effects of Basic Encounter and Task Training Group Experiences on Undergraduate Advisors to Freshmen V/omen, " unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainsville, Florida, 1968.

Tannenbaum, P. H., "Attitudes Toward Source and Concept as Factors in Attitude Change Through Communication," unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, 1953»

Verett, Gary D., "The Effect of a Summer Group Counseling Institute on Selected Attitudes and Personality Characteristics of Junior College Counselors," un-published doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, North Texas State University, Denton, Texas, 19?0.

Reports

Borg, Walter R., Research on Team Teaching; Study of Human Interaction Variables in Successful and Unsuccessful Teacher Teams! Weber School District Report, Ogden, Utah, I TTH^ber, 1966), as reported by the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education.

Cunningham, D. F,, Effect of Background and Personality of Teachers on Teacher Teams, Houston, Bureau of Educational Research and Services, University of Houston, 1964.

137

Sherif, Muzafer, et, al,, Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation. Norman, Oklahoma, University of Oklahoma Book Exchange, 1961.

THE COMPARISON OF A TEAM/GROUP DYNAMICS TRAINING …/67531/metadc164507/m2/1/high_re… · Model Within Leadership Training Workshops. Doctor of Education ... a team/group dynamics

Documents