15.01.2018TEAM DEVELOPMENT AS BUILDING BLOCK OF QUALITY CULTURE IN HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM
Robert Khachatryan, PhD, Head of Quality Assurance Center, Head of Chair on Education Management and Planning, Yerevan Brusov State University of Languages and Social Sciences
Kristina Alaverdyan, Chair of Internal Quality Assurance and Accreditation Committee, University of Buraimi
Social capital formation and human capital formation with certain attributes could significantly contribute to the successful transition from hierarchic to learning organizations. This is specifically observable in the knowledge societies and economies. The gradual shift toward strategic based, proactive behavioral patterns and operations could be facilitated by the existence of multiple and multifaceted components (e.g. teams) that interact with each other and have an adaptive logic that is based on compound feedback system, making them responsive to change. The adaptation is influenced by a group or organization that has appropriate mechanisms and structures for knowledge management (Aktharsha and Anisa, 2011). Knowledge management in its turn balances out the progress of learning and sustains the continued change of individual learning (Aktharsha and Anisa, 2011). Ultimately, knowledge management enhances collaboration in return facilitating the sharing of best practices (Aktharsha and Anisa, 2011). Universities that conceptualize the need of facilitating organizational learning and organizing institutional teaching in ways to make the formation a continuous process with the development of the understanding that it is a lifelong endeavor are necessitated to revisit knowledge management practices, particularly the ones that deal with the pedagogical fundamentals that support teaching, learning, and assessment (TLA) methodologies. This is predicated by the veracity that the sustained and planned effort of learning more effective might be facilitated through a collaborative mode. Thus, making organizational and team learning makes the part and parcel of curriculum, and extra-curricular activities should lead to sustained individual learning, as well as organizational change.
From the perspective of organizational change, universities face a daunting task of gradually building the components of quality assurance that would lead to the formation of quality culture as part of institutional strategy. Most of the universities in western education systems and more particularly, the ones that aspire to play a leading role in European Higher Education Area have committed themselves to developing such models. However, the approaches vary greatly with most of them typologically taking the macro path that requires the establishment of accreditation mechanisms, institutionalizing the requirements of the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG Guidelines). Certain institutions prefer highlighting the importance of educational program quality enhancement and the targeting of learning outcomes. However, they take the perspective of holistic qualifications that are measurable and comparable. In none of the cases, pedagogical approaches to the behavioral change as the axis of the transformation of the organizational culture and the enhancement of quality is considered a viable and important alternative to institutional macro and micro reform attempts and concepts. Nevertheless, there is ample evidence that teams have proven to have a positive correlation with the quality and in many educational organizations they have been used as basic units of curriculum delivery (Sallis, 2002). It is remarkable that teams have been embedded in the curriculum, but this has not been considered to be a useful tool to prompt institutional change via learned behavioral patterns that lead to higher order thinking skills development and knowledge management. Moreover, the research conducted up to this moment has not considered linking pedagogical practices in regard to team learning with the transformations at institutional level. In order for an organization to embed a large number of overlapping teams and to ensure adaptive, thus, well functioning operations (Sallis, 2002), the human resources management system of organization will have to incorporate team based learning practices that are infused as early as secondary education and become a strong part of the curriculum at tertiary level. Since it does not occur on its own and has to be revealed, it is then subject to methodological fine-tuning. As Philip Crosby (1979) has said, “being part of a team is not a natural human function; it is learned.” This entails that team members will have to learn to work together (Sallis, 2002). In order for that to happen, teams, like people, need mentoring and as social learning theorists suggest scaffolding if they are to be able to manage the knowledge and to collaborate extensively (Sallis, 2002). Therefore, the pedagogy of team learning becomes instrumental to the process of team formation, development and enhanced individual learning, leading to strategic planning at institutional level based on gradual behavioral pattern management via team formation through the development of effective learning methodologies.
The recognition of the importance of team formation via learning as a carefully planned methodological practice should be considered as a basic unit in the long chain of quality control, management, enhancement, thus, becoming the forerunner of perpetual cultural change. Team development through teamwork is based on mutual trust and established relationships that stem from effective communication and learning (Sallis, 2002). Therefore, trust could be defined as a sustained combination of communication acts with certain limited probabilities that gradually develop a system of shortcuts, optimizing the time of communication and the utility of end product. Learning has to incorporate practices that make the communication efficient creating knowledge management modes of operation that would result in effectiveness of information transfer, which is correlated with trust building. This is possible, if teams develop their identity through a formation period that entails learning activities instrumental to their ability to function (Sallis, 2002). That is why teams need time to cultivate and take shape and have recognized cycles of development (Tuckman, 1965). Tuckman speaks of 4 stages of group formation that starts with the forming stage, then goes to the storming and norming stages, with the performing coming at the end and opening a possibility for a transformation. Tuckman's first, stage of group formation is all about forming. Initially, there is no team as such, it is rather a group of individuals that have a common task and purpose, but have not yet developed operational modes and rules to deliver efficiently and effectively the end products defined by the task at hand. This greatly hinders the concept of quality control. The author indicates that there are a number of emotions associated with this stage, ranging from excitement, optimism, idealism, pride and anticipation through to fear, suspicion and anxiety. When coming to formation stage a team according to Tuckman exhibits signs of operational shortcuts, but is yet subject to distraction that could lead to the focusing of the attention on issues that are outside of group's mandate. This naturally creates a lot of frustration and waste of time and effort. These patterns of behavior are often seen as wasteful in time and effort. In fact, they are normal and necessary. However, Sallis argues that these are essential processes that any team must go through (Sallis, 2002). They correspond with the eighth and ninth of Deming's 14 points: drive out fear so that everyone may work effectively, and break down barriers between departments (Deming, 1986).
Right after the first stage, the teams come to the point of nadir in their pattern change process, when "members realize the scale of the task ahead and may react negatively to its challenges" (Sallis, 2002). It is the period of intense communication that requires a substantial amount of oversight and scaffolding on the part of the teacher that could be called as the team leader. This is the period when personal agendas are laid out and hostilities arise due to that, demanding more time for the accomplishment of specific tasks. This is the moment of non-optimal operations, when communication on how to communicate in order to deliver is being constructed. This becomes a subject of interest for pedagogical research in terms of understanding the logic of communication methodology and trust development that occurs though the building blocks that are defined as the shortcuts stated previously in the text. It is instrumental for the team leader to recognize the source of any conflict and diffuse it by assisting members to search for common ground (Sallis, 2002). There is a positive side to the storming stage. It is the period when members begin to understand each other, as well as humor and patience are important qualities for a team leader at the storming stage (Sallis, 2002). Once again, two of Deming's 14 points are pertinent at the storming stage. They are points one and two: create constancy of purpose, and adopt the new philosophy (Deming, 1986).
The next stage is called norming. This is when shortcuts are being created and are turned into rules of behavior and tailored methods for operation. Learning at this point is instrumental to successful transfer to the final stage as defined by Tuckman. During the performing stage team already has an established identity according to the studies (Tuckman, 1965, Sallis, 2002), as it has a well established ownership of defined rules, a list of shortcuts that highly supports effective functioning. Deming's points five and seven of his 14 points exemplify the performing stage: improve constantly and forever the system of production and service, and institute leadership (Deming, 1986). Well-performing teams improve their performance over time and may reach the fifth stage, known as transforming (Deming, 2002). This is the stage when real improvements in quality are made. Deming believed that competition witnessed at this point is becoming a destructive force (Deming, 2002). He spoke of a non-zero sum game, where everyone could work together as a system, and developing modus of operandi characterized by cooperation. He argued that this would facilitate a transformation process with consequential new style of management (Deming, 2002). Nevertheless, once again with the new vision of operations without performance indicators and evaluation, the essential pillar of trust and its conceptualization through learning methodologies undertakes an outstanding role. Thus, it grows to be a matter of scholarly interest worthy of thorough examination.
Trust represents one of the most critical issues facing collaborative groups (Smith, 2010). Learning collaboratively often involves a dramatic shift in one's views of teaching and learning, changing perspectives on the nature of knowledge, roles of teachers and the roles of one's peers in the learning process (Smith, 2010). Studying the team formation and measuring the results of different interventions, clustering them into main typologies of learning methodologies could provide clues to knowledge management, quality improvement, cultural transformation and conflict minimization. Approaching quality culture from the perspective of pedagogy entails the perspective of furthering the advancement of trust related knowledge, leading to effective collaborative learning and work environments. At this point, much of the research on trust focuses on interpersonal behavioral issues that affect communication, problem-solving processes and group outcomes. Although the present focus is important and helpful to help understand the ways in which trust can be facilitated and managed in collaborative groups, it largely ignores the epistemic issues and how they may affect trust (Smith, 2010).
Research Framework for Subject Field
Learners at earlier stages of epistemological development are unsure of their own ability to co-construct knowledge, have limited ability to shift through different perspectives that their heterogeneous groups represent, and they are unsure if the group can meet their learning needs (Smith, 201C1). Trust issues through team formation that is mediated by the careful employment of tested and selected pedagogical techniques can constitute trust development, thus, leading to optimal operations and maximum satisfaction, liberating the educators and the managers from growingly ineffective measurement tools of performance evaluation and learning assessment that at times subvert the true mission of education or challenge organizational quality, establishing new types of bureaucracies that pull the leverages via qualifications and control quality assurance criteria. They overburden the system with exceedingly mundane tasks of self-evaluation, draining the human capital by distracting it from its main creative endeavor. Therefore, this research aims at the examination of the development of structures of trust via team formation, focusing its attention on the typological changes of communication acts within the groups. Within this framework, the main target of the study is to cultivate learning methodologies using the theoretical foundations of social constructivism. Trust in this case has little to do with individual group member behavior, but may reflect underlying epistemic issues that the learners import into the group (Smith, 2010).
For the purpose of this research, a number of hypotheses have been formulated that will be tested employing appropriate research methodologies. The first hypothesis (HI) states that team behavior impacts team cohesion and loyalty, when it first reaches a cooperative communication act and later one transforms into being a collaborative communication. From the perspective of constructivist learning theory, collaboration is a higher order concept, as it has a component of self-regulatory mechanism, when team members work towards the accomplishment of a certain clearly defined task or goal. Cooperation is being directed from outside, most commonly by the leadership or instructor, when team members most commonly do not have a clearly defined goals or a vision, but are asked to accomplished a specific task. Cooperation should be a transitory condition towards collaborative practices both in education, as well as management at organizational level. Moreover, if cooperation is the key mode of operations, then performance evaluations and learning assessments are the standard instruments in ensuring quality standardization and management. However, when one reaches the level of performance with prevalent collaborative practices trust takes center stage minimizing the need to perform above stated tasks in order to ensure the quality and provide for accountability. For the purpose of measuring this hypothesis the testing of cooperative and collaborative communication acts becomes the target with the following statements that need to be turned into experimental tools to be examined within the research:
Collaboration
1. The team within its operations feels the support of the team leader, teacher, leadership
2. The team concludes the job division within the set team mandate
3. The team members choose the job segments on voluntary basis taking into consideration their inherent and/or acquired strengths
4. The team members meet without the request of the team leader, teacher, leadership
5. The team members constantly and frequently communicate both orally and in a written form employing different communication tools and using various environments
6. The team members share most of created documents
7. The task at hand is clear for every team member
8. The team operations is transparent for all members
Cooperation
1. The team feels the support of the team leader, teacher, leadership
2. The team leader, teacher, leadership comes up with the job division within the given mandate
3. The team members get their share of the task from the team leader, teacher, leadership
4. The team leader, teacher, leadership summons regular meetings
5. The team leader, teacher, leadership sends messages to team members
6. The team leader, teacher, leadership sends out the created documents
7. The team work is not clear for everyone
8. The team work is not transparent for everyone
The next hypothesis (H2) states that team behavior impacts the trust. This hypothesis will be measured by examining the communication patterns that classify then into stages of team formation. The main question for this segment will be to identify the stage of formation. It requires the experimental assessment of the communication that would indicate that team members clearly understand the scope of work and the goals. There is a possibility that team members perform their tasks based on the close instruction of the team leader, teacher, and leadership and find them quite complex to deliver the end result required. During this stage, the measurement of communication acts that indicate the presence of serious disagreement among members is instrumental to determining the transitory typologies of shortcuts. Moreover, the vocabulary and certain synchronization will be a matter of focusing and measurement, indicating the level of rule development and transformation of the quality of communication. The volume of voluntary action and the amount of cross-support are stated to be the harbinger of effective operations of the team as a new identity in its totality of factors constituting a system.
The third hypothesis (H3) states that trust impacts the team loyalty and serves as a binding force leading to the formation of its identity. In this part, the research will address the communication specificities that highlight the atmosphere inside it and among the members. More specifically, the communication substantiating the level of cohesion, clarity of purpose, talking the problems that arise along the way would be targeted. Moreover, it will examine the communication acts that exhibit intension aiming at the best solutions sought and the fact of team members trying to suggest more efficient ways of operation. Finally, this part will have to look at the evidence that supports the declining thread of disagreement, conflict, and communication.
The fourth hypothesis (H4) states that team perception of team support impacts its behavior, making the communication more coherent and increasing frequencies of it. This is supposed to lead to shortcuts that increase the efficiency of actions. The main questions in this section are the types of communication and risk management. The team leader, teacher, leadership sets the stage for cooperative mode by providing information about the final product and the scope of work, introducing division of tasks, transferring the required information and data, as well as supporting team members in performing their tasks and gradually constructing the bigger picture aiming at the formulation of clear vision through purposeful deliberation. When coming to risk management the team leader, teacher, leadership assigns joint tasks to various pairs within the group, defines the initial rules and quality standards, answers the questions and discusses the suggestions of team members what concerns the overall deliverable end product and team operations.
The fifth hypothesis (H5) claims that the team perception of team support impacts the trust. The core of this hypothesis is to understand to what extent the instruction and overall communication of the team leader, teacher, and leadership reaches team members and with what level of clarity? The spectrum of measurement ranges from clear messages to scaffolding based on the full understanding of the needs of each member. The final hypothesis (H6) attests that team perception of team support impacts team loyalty, where the main target examines main types of support. What kind of feedback is being given by the team leader, teacher, leadership in return to accomplished tasks? What advice is being given to team members? How useful these pieces of advice are? What are the patterns of appreciation and reprimand employed by the team leader, teacher, leadership? The classification and semiotic analysis of these communication patterns will allow understanding the signs of trust development, opening the second stage of research for creating effective pedagogical interventions that would lead to collaborative action and sustained transformation.
The above stated scheme exhibits the main hypotheses and links, the analysis of which would allow dissecting the communication structure by providing typologies of formation and the semiotics of transitory stages. The crux is depicted by HI hypothesis link, which indicates two types of teamwork. One is the collaborating, when team members are clear on why they are performing a certain task as they have a full grasp of the scope and the broader goals. The sharing of the vision is scuffled by the team leader, teacher, and leadership via effective communication. The other one is the rather instructed mode of operations, that in this research is called cooperation, when team members clearly understand their task ahead of them, but they have to full sight of the vision and broader goals.
Methodology and Data Organization
For the purpose of elucidating the above stated hypotheses, the core methodology should be the application of experimental design. This means that a research course at master’s level will be the foundation for the research. A quantitative method with survey design will be used to collect periodic data from experimental and control groups. The frequency of application of survey will be equal to the phases of transition in the process of team formation. Along with that, logging of each class and out-of-class contact will be conducted as part of the observation technique, which will be combined with the periodic application of individual interviews of a selected sample of respondents both from the experimental and control groups. The collected information classified though different methodologies of research will create a database of numerical, quantifiable and descriptive data. The numerical data and standardized "concept" data sets will be further filtered in order to create statistical correlations, applying triangulation and comparison of various sets of variables in order to generate the information, explaining the main hypothetical statements.
The data collected from individual interviews will be used to create charts by filtering the quantifiable data, as well as by applying discourse analysis, trying to identify the main types of communications for each circumstance and stage of development. The pedagogical interventions applied in-class and out-of-class cases will be meticulously recorded based on the use of epistemological theoretical foundation will be linked with the timing of logged interview and observations of team behavior via individual interviews in order to identify the communication acts that constitute the most efficient methodologies of learning. Over the period of two years the laboratory will serve as an experimental ground for conducting this research. The first year will be the pre-testing of the research methodology and calibration of applied tools in order to fine tune it to the research framework described in the proposal. The second year will help to collect a better quality data of a richer spectrum. The sorted data will then conclude the analysis of concepts and formulation of judgments based on the evidence from the experiment.
Conclusions
Trust development through team formation applying pedagogical interventions in the form of learning methodologies will hopefully advance the research on epistemic issues and how they affect trust. It will hopefully shed light on what types of communication strengthen the structures of trust by creating shortcuts that optimize the timing of operations and the standardization of end result addressing one of the main issues of total quality management, i. e. frequency of limited range variation of deliverables while decreasing the need to evaluation performances and assess the achievement.
REFERENCES
1. Adam, Stephen (2008). Learning outcomes current developments in Europe: Update on the issues and applications of learning outcomes associated with the Bologna Process. http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/13ologna/BolognaSeminars/documents /Edinburgh/Edi nburgh_Feb08_Adams.pdf
2. Adelman, C. (2008). Learning Accountability from Bologna: A Higher Education Policy Primer, Issues, Brief, Washington, DC: 1HEP.
3. Aktharsha, U Syed, and H. Anisa. "Knowledge Management System and Learning Organization: An Empirical Study in an Engineering Organization." Journal of Knowledge Management 9, No. 2 (April 2011): 26-43. Business Source Premier, EBSCOAosr (accessed February 15, 2012)
4. Crosby, Philip, Quality is Free, Mentor Books, New York, 1979
5. Deming, W. E. 1993. The New Economics for Industry, Government & Education. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Advanced Engineering Study
6. Deming, W. E. 1986. Out of Crisis. Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study : Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
7. Doyle, Robyn, and Usha George. "Achieving and Measuring Diversity: An Organizational Change Approach." Social Work Education 27, no. 1 (February 2008): 97-110. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed February 15, 2012).
8. ENQA (2005). European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area, http://www.eqar.eu/fileadmin/documcnts/e4/050221 ENQA report.pdf
9. ENQA (2008). Quality Procedures in the European Higher Education Area and Beyond - Second ENQA, Survey. Helsinki: ENQA. http://www.enqa.eu/pubs.lasso
10. EUA (2008b). European Universities' Charter on Lifelong Learning, Brussels: European University, Association, http://www.eua.be/publications/#c398
11. EUA (2009a). Survey of Master Degrees in Europe, By Howard Davies, Brussels: European University, Association, http://www.eua.be/publications/
12. Reichert, S. (2006). The Rise of Knowledge Regions: Emerging Opportunities and Challenges for Universities, Brussels: European University Association. http://www.cua.be/publications/
13. Reichert, S. (2009). Institutional Diversity in European Higher Education: Tensions and Challenges for Policy Makers and Institutional Leaders. Brussels: European University Association, http://www.eua.be/publications/
14. Sallis, Edward, Total Quality Management in Education, London, UK: Kogan Page, 2002
15. Smith, Regina O. "The Epistemic Challenges, Trust and the Online Collaborative Group." International Journal of Lifelong Education 29, no. 1 (January 1, 2010): 21¬44. ERIC, EBSCOJiosr (accessed February 15, 2012).
16. Tuckman, B W, 'Development Sequences in Small
Groups', Psychological Bulletin, 63, 1965.
Return