Citation
The impact of structured reflection on group performance

Material Information

Title:
The impact of structured reflection on group performance
Creator:
Duckworth, Shelette M
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
vii, 163 leaves : illustrations, forms ; 29 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Group decision making ( lcsh )
Organizational behavior ( lcsh )
Self-knowledge, Theory ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 159-163).
Thesis:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Master of Arts, Communication
General Note:
Department of Communication
Statement of Responsibility:
by Shelette M. Duckworth.

Record Information

Source Institution:
|University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
|Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
34880783 ( OCLC )
ocm34880783
Classification:
LD1190.L48 1995m .D83 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

THE IMPACT OF STRUCTURED REFLECTION ON GROUP PERFORMANCE by Shelette M. Duckworth B.S., Regis University, 1991 A thesis submitted to the University of Colorado at Denver in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Communication 1995

PAGE 2

This thesis for the Master of Arts degree by Shelette M. Duckworth has been approved by Michael Hackman ) d;J !? /y.s-1 Date

PAGE 3

Duckworth, Shelette M. (M.A., Communication) The Impact of Structured Reflection on Group Performance Thesis directed by Professor Samuel Betty ABSTRACT Due to the perceived need to improve productivity in the workplace, emphasis is placed on the importance of effective leadership, teamwork and organizational learning to accomplish business goals. This thesis addressed a possible technique for groups to use that may enable them to increase their efficiency and effectiveness in achieving the organization's goals. This study was to explore the relation between structured reflection and group productivity. The following are the research questions addressed: Will structured reflection, as a group, impact the group's ability to complete the exercise more efficiently and effectively relative to groups without structured reflection? Will structured reflection, as a group, impact the group's ability to complete the exercise more efficiently and effectively relative to groups using individual, structured reflection? Will structured reflection, as individuals, impact the group's ability to complete the exercise more efficiently and effectively relative to groups without structured reflection? iii

PAGE 4

To conduct this study, groups of people were asked to participate in a simulation that consisted of three tasks. The control groups were allowed no time for structured reflection between tasks. One set of test groups was given time for structured, individual reflection between tasks; a second set of test groups was given time for structured, group reflection between tasks. Performance was measured on two dimensions: effectiveness and efficiency in completing the exercise. Exploring the relationship between structured reflection and group efficiency and effectiveness using the Kruskai-Wallis test, no relationship was found. However, results from the Two-Way ANOVA, on data from the Follow up Questionnaire, indicated borderline significance between Groups B and Groups C on the perception of the value of reflection. Groups C Group Reflection, indicated a slightly more positive perception of the value of reflection than Groups B Individual Reflection. These results pose two questions: Is the theory of reflection valid? Was reflection appropriately operationalized and measured in this study? The researcher believes more.extensive research should be conducted to better understand the impact of reflection on group performance. This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidate's thesis. recommend its publication. Samuel Betty iv

PAGE 5

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Sincere gratitude to my parents for instilling a sense of perseverance and to Jerry for encouraging me to challenge what others accept. Thank you to my Committee, Sam Betty, Jon Winterton and Michael Hackman for their valuable suggestions. With tremendous admiration, thank you to those people who have so positively touched my life by demonstrating continuous learning: Roberta Andersen, Jim Cadello, Marshall Gile and Margot Timbel.

PAGE 6

CONTENTS CHAPTERS 1. THE PROBLEM ......................... ...... .............. .......... ... 1 2. THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK........................... 14 Literature on Learning Reflective Thinking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Cooperative Learning ............................. 22 Learning Models..................................... 30 Literature on Reflection Reflective Teaching ................................ 36 Reflective Questioning............................ 40 Structured Reflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 3. THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND DEFINITIONS ... 46 4. THE STUDY DESIGN.................................................. 50 Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Business Simulation Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Measures........................................................... 54 Sequence of Study ............................................ 56 Timer's Responsibilities ..................................... 58 vi

PAGE 7

Study Environment............................................ 60 Study Analysis................................................... 60 5. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS............................................ 62 Efficiency........................................................... 63 Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Follow-up Questionnaire ........... .. ............. .. ....... 73 6. THE CONCLUSION ..................................................... 81 APPENDIX A. Participant Consent Form .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 8-1 Directions for ExerciseControl Groups...................... 94 8-2. Directions for Exercise Individual Reflection .............. 113 8-3. Directions for Exercise Group Reflection ................... 134 C. Follow-up Questionnaire for Participants ..................... 156 WORKS CITED ................................................................................. 159 WORKS CONSULTED ...................................................................... 162 vii

PAGE 8

CHAPTER 1 THE PROBLEM The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them. -Albert Einstein Change. Change. Change. We must learn to deal with it, thrive on it. That's today's relentless refrain. But it's incorrect. Astoundingly, we must move beyond change and embrace nothing less than the literal abandonment of the conventions that brought us to this point. -Tom Peters As indicated by the above quotations, we are encouraged to adopt new innovations and new levels of thinking in order to surpass our current levels of performance. Athletes, scientists, educators and employees of business are all faced with the same perplexing challenge -that is, how to achieve or sustain a leading and competitive position in our ever-changing, increasingly demanding environment. Satisfaction and contentment with one's current level of performance may be a fatal error no matter what the industry, profession or area of endeavor. Contentment with the status quo

PAGE 9

may lead to a learning disability described as the Boiled Frog Syndrome (Senge, 1990, 15). The parable of the boiled frog refers to the fact that we are very good at reacting to sudden threats to our survival, but we are very poor at recognizing slow, gradual threats. This is similar to a frog that will sit in the water and let itself be slowly boiled to death because it does not perceive the danger. One cannot become so comfortable with his/her current state that one does not realize the "heat" is being turned up. That "heat" may be increased competition or a changing environment. Even leading organizations and successful people need to adopt new ideas and challenge their current thinking and methods to avoid the Boiled Frog Syndrome. It appears that few organizations are immune to increased competition and threats to their survival. Headlines in The Wall Street Journal during the week of July 11, 1995, include: "Toyota Official Hints at Big Job Cuts As Output in Japan Continues to Fall" "Boeing-Led Alliance Halts 'Super-Jumbo' Jet" "Sybase Says Profits for '95 Won't Meet Earlier Projections" "Jet Lag: New Engine's Problems Put GE Behind In the Race to Power Latest Plane From Boeing" "In Latest Round of Banking Mergers, Even Big Institutions Become Targets" 2

PAGE 10

With the potentially harmful consequences of downsizings, mergers, and lost profits lurking in the fog of competition, organizations are imposing multiple processes and programs on their work force in an attempt to avoid these potential, disastrous consequences. Re-engineering, benchmarking, total quality management, alliance building and organizational transformation are just a few of the attempted solutions to increase productivity and reduce costs and cycle time in order to achieve a competitive advantage over the competition. These programs that espouse to enhance productivity and positive bottom-line results can miss their target; the results are unintended consequences that hinder productivity and profitability. Due to the increased perception to improve productivity in the workplace, emphasis is being placed on the importance of teamwork in order to accomplish the organization's goals and objectives that will lead to success. Organizations of the 1990s face a degree of complexity that requires intelligence beyond that of any single individual. To solve problems in complex systems, we must learn to tap the collective intelligence of groups of knowledgeable people (Isaacs, 28). Work teams appear to be a popular method employed to tap the collective intelligence of multiple people to gain efficiencies in the workplace. Teams are the means by which organizational goals and objectives are accomplished through communication of 3

PAGE 11

information, learning and accomplishment of tasks. In the words of Johnson and Johnson, "teams are the heart of most organizations" (397). The word "team" can be traced back to the Indo-European word deuk meaning "to pull." Though the word has changed somewhat over time, it always has included a meaning of "pulling together" (Senge, 1994, 354). Teams "pull together'' individual resources, knowledge, talents and ideas to collectively accomplish business objectives. Jon R. Katzenbach and Douglas K. Smith use the following team definition: "A team is a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals, and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable" (45). Johnson and Johnson similarly define a team as, "A set of interpersonal relationships structured to achieve established goals. Teams function as individual members interact" (429). It is also recognized by Johnson and Johnson that the productivity of teams is not a simple function of team members' technical competencies and task abilities. Instead, to be productive, "team members must interact face-to-face, perceive strong positive interdependence, be individually accountable, employ their collaborative skills and process how effectively the group has been working. Along with these many dimensions of teamwork, group members must also ensure that the group is cohesive, that 4

PAGE 12

trust is built and maintained among group members and that the group's norms enhance productivity" (430). The team concept is continually growing in popularity among many organizations as they seek to employ methods that may give them their desired competitive advantage. Teams are taking on many different forms. For example, in some organizations, teams have evolved from functional teams, where one discipline is represented, to multi-disciplinary teams, where various functions are represented on one team. Self-directed teams, in which team members share the leadership and management role, are also coming into vogue. This apparent trend indicates that teams will continue to evolve and become more sophisticated. There is little contrary evidence that teamwork in organizations will dissipate in the near future. Therefore, the researcher believes there is tremendous value to be gained by individuals and organizations who seek methods and processes to continue to enhance the team concept. Teams may be the method for tapping into the collective intelligence offered by many individuals. The result -individuals may benefit from enhancing the team concept if it enables them to find enjoyment and fulfillment in their work, and organizations may benefit from enhancing the team concept if it successfully impacts their profitability. 5

PAGE 13

Katzenbach and Smith state, "Teams outperform individuals acting alone ... especially when performance requires multiple skills, judgments, and experiences" (9). This study was not intended to validate this statement nor determine if the team concept is a useful method for achieving organizational goals and objectives. Rather, the purpose of this study was to explore a possible technique for teams to utilize that would enable them to tap into the collective team knowledge to increase their effectiveness and efficiency. This research study was to determine what impact structured reflection would have on a group's ability to perform a given exercise. The questions the researcher has asked include: Will structured reflection, as a group, impact the group's ability to complete the exercise more efficiently and effectively relative to groups without structured reflection? Will structured reflection, as a group, impact the group's ability to complete the exercise more efficiently and effectively relative to groups using individual, structured reflection? Will structured reflection, as individuals, impact the group's ability to complete the exercise more efficiently and effectively relative to groups without structured reflection? The process the researcher used to identify these questions was to funnel through a concept called organizational learning. Organizational learning is not necessarily a new concept to the 1990s, as one might 6

PAGE 14

conclude after a review of the current literature. Kolb, Rubin and Mcintyre mention this concept in their book, Organizational Psychology, published in 1971 (33). As organizations seek to gain competitive advantages, employees are realizing that they just can't "fix things." Instead, they have to apply theories, methods, tools, and increase their own skills to solve problems and make progress towards achieving the organization's goals. "They have to find and instill new guiding ideas in order to gradually evolve a new type of organization that can deal with the problems and opportunities of today and invest in its capacity to embrace tomorrow" (Senge, 1994, 4). According to Senge, learning has become synonymous with "taking in information .... Most fundamentally, learning is about enhancing capacity ... it is about creating and building the capacity to create that which you previously couldn't create. It is intimately related to action, which taking in information is not" (Senge, 1990, 12). It appears, however, that many employees in organizations are just beginning to understand the concept of organizational learning and are searching for ways to make it operational to positively impact their organization's success. Many people, however, are not certain how to put the learning concepts into practice. According to Senge, people are asking, "What steps should we take to instill a sense of systemic awareness in a 7

PAGE 15

team of people? How do we navigate past the many barriers and roadblocks to collective learning? How do we get started?" (Senge, 1994, 5) Argyris states that, "Learning is an idea in good currency. The quality of learning within a company yields an 'intellectual capital,' crucial in building an organization that is vigilant about detecting and correcting errors, dedicated to producing innovations, and ready to change to meet the demands of the environment, which itself is often changing" (5). The topic of organizational learning is not a well-understood concept by many people. Kim admits, "Though learning may be an idea in good currency, there is little agreement on what organizational learning means and even less on how to create a learning organization" (37). As a result, the researcher has looked to a model of individual learning to better understand the learning process. The learning model, developed by Kolb, Rubin and Mcintyre, describes the learning process as a cycle consisting of four steps (Kolb, 1971, 33): 1. Concrete experience 2. Reflective observation and analysis of the experience 3. Abstraction and generalization from the observation 4. Active experimentation based on the new generalization (which produces new experiences and thus initiates a new learning cycle 8

PAGE 16

This model was designed primarily with the individual learner in mind to describe how a person can learn from past experiences. The researcher is interested in this model in conjunction with the team concept of learning. After all, teams are made up of a collection of individuals. Specifically, the researcher wants to determine what impact reflection, the second step in Kolb's model, has on productivity. Stephanie Spear of Innovation Associates developed a variation of the Kolb Learning Model that applies to teams. The four steps described in this Team Learning Wheel by Spear include: 1. Coordinated Action 2. Public Reflection 3. Shared Meaning 4. Joint Planning "The 'reflection' stage is 'public' because it takes place over a common table. People talk about their mental models and beliefs, and challenge each other gently but relentlessly" (Senge, 1994, 61). Kolb's Learning Model and Spear's Team Learning Wheel describe how people learn by outlining the learning process. They both highlight reflection as an important step in the learning process. Johnson and Johnson, on the other hand, have discussed what people learn and why reflection is critical to a group. Johnson and Johnson have determined that 9

PAGE 17

groups need specific time to discuss how well they are achieving their goals and maintaining effective working relationships among members. Johnson and Johnson operationally define group processing: Such processing enables task groups to focus on group maintenance, facilitates the learning of collaborative skills, ensures that members receive feedback on their participation, and reminds members to practice collaborative skills consistently. Some of the keys to successful processing are allowing sufficient time for processing to take place, making it specific rather than general, maintaining member involvement in processing, collaborative skills during processing and communicating clear expectations for processing. The researcher believes "group processing," in the terms of Johnson and Johnson, to be similar to reflection in Kolb's Learning Model and "public reflection" as defined in the Team Learning Wheel by Spear. They are similar in that people are looking back at past performance for the purpose of improving future performance. Though it appears many people recognize the importance of group processing and reflection, there has been little research on its impact. According to Johnson and Johnson, "Few attempts have been made to investigate the impact of group processing on group productivity" (402). Based on observations made by the researcher, the act of reflection is often ignored or left out of the group process. This may be due to several factors: lack of time, lack of knowledge about the learning process, lack of 10

PAGE 18

support or encouragement from superiors, lack of cooperation from team members to utilize this process or lack of information about the value of reflection. This observation is supported by Senge who said, "Many organizational cultures influence people to skip this [reflection] stage, partly because of assumptions about the way people spend their time. If someone is reflecting it is considered perfectly acceptable to interrupt them because "they're not doing anything" (60). In addition, Hughes, et al, also recognize that reflection is often neglected in leadership development. "Leaders are usually very busy people working in pressure-filled situations and often do not have time to ponder all the possible consequences of their action or reflect on how they could have accomplished a particular action better ... leaders may not be aware of the value of reflection in leadership development" (31 ). Another supporting observation by Mitroff indicates that reflection has lacked the attention it deserves in the workplace but suggests its importance may be heightened, especially by managers. Workplaces are not typically associated with reflection or critical self reflection, ideas ... somewhat irrelevant to the hard-nosed, bottom line, and results-oriented world of business. In the workplace, reflection of any type has been considered a luxury, something that takes place only in the ivory towers of academe, and by its very nature somewhat unrelated to "real life." Yet, paradoxically, reflection is becoming more part of the lifeblood of organizations in today's turbulent economic environment. It used to be that businesses thrived on the unexamined, almost mindless repetition of a proven formula. Today, workers at all levels are called upon to think differently and 11

PAGE 19

more deeply about themselves, their work and their relationship to the organization. This is nowhere more evident than in the ranks of managers, whose very survival is threatened by mergers and acquisitions, downsizing, and flattening of the organizational pyramid. Frequently trained to implement policies rationally, managers are being called upon to make subjective judgments, take risks, and question the assumptions on which they have operated" (47). The researcher was intrigued with the possible impact structured reflection would have on a group's ability to tap their collective intelligence, learn about their processes, increase their effectiveness and increase their productivity. If time is not spent in a reflective mode, the learning process, as described by Kolb, is potentially compromised, and the ability to create a learning organization could be dramatically hindered. In the culture of the United States, being productive is often viewed as a form of activity -physically working faster, longer or harder. Passive activity is not customarily recognized as a contribution to productivity. The researcher wants to explore the possibility that time spent in structured reflection will improve the groups' ability to perform their exercise more efficiently and effectively than just continuing to physically work faster, longer and harder. It is desired by the researcher that structured reflection, as a means of building a learning organization, will be viewed as a worthwhile and valuable activity in the work environment by both team members and those people, most often management, who define the organization's culture. 12

PAGE 20

Peter Senge writes about the many reasons to build a learning organization. One consideration that he proposes: Today, the most critical threats are slow, gradual processes to which we have contributed ourselves: environmental destruction, the global arms race ... and the decay of educational, family, and community structures. These types of problems cannot be understood, given our conventional ways of thinking. There is no beast to slay, no villain to vanquish, no one to blame --just a need to think differently and to understand the underlying patterns of dependency. .. If we are going to address these conditions in any significant way, it will have to be at the level of collective thinking and understanding -at the level of organizations, communities, and society (12). In order to attain or sustain a competitive advantage in business, the researcher believes teams in organizations need to incorporate processes and procedures into their daily work habits that enable them to learn from past experiences in a collective, collaborative manner. If done so, "it [an organization] will be able to deal with the problems and opportunities of today, and invest in its capacity to embrace tomorrow because its members are continually focused on enhancing and expanding their collective awareness and capabilities" (Senge, 1994, 4). 13

PAGE 21

CHAPTER 2 THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK In the book, On Becoming a Leader, Warren Bennis shares several discussions about the impact of reflection. He first describes four lessons of self-knowledge. The fourth of these lessons is that true understanding comes from reflecting on your experience (56). "Reflecting on experience is a means of having a Socratic dialogue with yourself, asking the right questions at the right time, in order to discover the truth of yourself and your life. What really happened? Why did it happen? What did it do to me? What did it mean to me? In this way, one locates and appropriates the knowledge one needs, or more precisely, recovers what one knew but had forgotten ... (61). Bennis interviewed many leaders in preparing for his book and found the idea that reflecting leads to understanding, came up again and again. Anne Bryan, executive director of the American Association of University Women, has made reflection a part of her daily routine (61). Disney Productions' Vice President Chaplain shares stories of how he not only studied the movie business, he embraced and absorbed it, thereby, understanding it. Bennis suggested this kind of learning is produced by 14

PAGE 22

reflecting on experience. Barbara Corey said to Bennis, "Unfortunately, too often it's people's failures that get them to reflect on their experiences. When you're going along and everything is working well, you don't sit down and reflect, which is exactly the moment when you should do it [reflect]" (116). According to the testimonials in Bennis' book, it appears that many individuals understand and value the reflection process in their personal lives. They have attributed personal improvement and increased knowledge to reflection. In the literature search conducted by the researcher, there are few studies on reflection and, in particular, its impact on group performance. Since there are few studies on this topic and in this context, the researcher has looked at reflection from several perspectives. The following is a review of the literature that builds a base for structured reflection as a potential tool to integrate into a team's daily, weekly, and/or monthly routines. The literature about reflection can be categorized into two areas: 1. Literature on learning 2. Literature on reflection The researcher believes a review of the literature in both of these categories is valuable since learning is a fundamental requisite for making improvements, changes, or advancements. 15

PAGE 23

Literature on Learning Learning is the requisite response to change. A formula bo"owed from ecology states that in order for an organism to survive, its rate of learning must be equal to or greater than the rate of change in its environment. -Anonymous Reflective Thinking John Dewey (1859-1952) was an American philosopher, psychologist and educator. He was interested in the reform of educational theory and practices. The significant change in pedagogy in the United States during the twentieth century is largely attributable to Dewey (Funk & Wagnall Encyclopedia, 181). Much of Dewey's work was dedicated to analysis and evaluation of the human thought process. Since his work has been instrumental in redefining pedagogy, the researcher believes reviewing his theories and ideas are valuable to this project in order to better understand the learning process. To understand learning, the process of thinking must be addressed. Dewey defined the process of thinking as a means of planning action, or removing the obstacles between what is given and what is wanted (181). In 16

PAGE 24

other words, thinking is making plans to get to a desired point (B) from the current point (A). In our daily thinking process, we often develop solutions and hypotheses to problems we encounter without fully analyzing them. We attempt to jump from point A to point B without fully considering the obstacles in between. As a result, we may end up at point F, MorT--never getting to point B. This random type of thinking differs from reflective thinking in that the steps in the reflective process are described in a logical and schematic fashion (Columbia Associates in Philosophy, 5). As stated by Dewey, The mere occurrence of ideas or suggestions constitutes thinking, but not reflective thinking, not observation and thought directed to an acceptable conclusion -that is, to a conclusion which it is reasonable to believe because of the grounds on which it rests and the evidence which supports it. Ideas merely as such, apart from their orderly sequence, just 'pop into our heads.' 'I just happened to think of something' is often a perfectly accurate statement. Another dimension is needed, accordingly, to transform suggestions into reflective thinking -the property of order, of consecutiveness. There is no thinking without what is called 'association of ideas,' or a train of suggestions. But such a train, of itself, does not constitute reflection. Only when the succession is so controlled that it is an orderly sequence leading up to a conclusion that contains the intellectual force of the preceding ideas, do we have reflective thought (47). Dewey emphasizes that the succession of thoughts must be "controlled" in an orderly sequence for thoughts to be considered "reflective." For this reason, the researcher structured the reflection process to ensure an 17

PAGE 25

orderly sequence was followed during the reflection period. Through this structured reflection process, the team members are engaged in reflective thought as their conclusions build upon preceding ideas, as prescribed by Dewey. The groups in this study must be made aware of the fact that they are faced with a challenge. That challenge is to complete the exercise efficiently and effectively. This challenge will be the "guiding factor," in the process of reflection as mentioned by Dewey. As long as our activity glides smoothly along from one thing to another, or as long as we permit our imagination to entertain fancies at pleasure, there is no call for reflection. Difficulty or obstruction in the way of reaching a belief brings us, however, to a pause. In the suspense of uncertainty, we metaphorically climb a tree; we try to find some standpoint from which we may survey additional facts and, getting a more commanding view of the situation, decide how the facts stand related to one another''. Demand for the solution of a perplexity is the steadying and guiding factor in the entire process of reflection. Where there is no question of a problem to be solved or a difficulty to be surmounted, the course of suggestions flows on at random ... (14). The structured reflection process will allow the group members the opportunity to survey their processes, their assumptions and their perceptions by uncovering facts and ideas from people within their group. They can then make changes to their processes based on what they learn from each other. In the individual structured reflection process, the members will not have the opportunity to learn from each other during reflection, as they will not be 18

PAGE 26

given the opportunity to share their reflections. Therefore, it will be valuable to compare results from the groups who individually reflect with the groups who participate in structured, group reflection to determine if the time spent reflecting as a group had a significant effect in the group completing its exercise more efficiently and effectively. According to Dewey, "One can think reflectively only when one is willing to endure suspense and to undergo the trouble of searching" (16). It is recognized by the researcher that it is difficult for many people to find the time to reflect. Therefore, for this study, the test groups will be required to take time to step back from their exercise and reflect. To ensure that the groups do not rush through the reflection process, they were required to spend fifteen minutes in the reflection process. Dewey says, "We cannot learn or be taught to think, we do have to learn how to think well, especially how to acquire the general habit of reflecting" (35) .... the problem of method in forming habits of reflective thought is the problem of establishing conditions that will arouse and guide curiosity, of setting up the connections in things experienced that will on later occasions promote the flow of suggestions, create problems and purposes that will favor consecutiveness in the succession of ideas. (Dewey, 56)" 19

PAGE 27

Since reflection is not a habit for many people, time was built-in for reflection upon completion of the first task and the second task. This built-in time, in conjunction with the structured questions, was an attempt to create conditions to encourage reflection. According to Dewey, reflection includes observations and suggestions. The moment a person begins to reflect, he or she begins observing in order to take stock of conditions. Observations are made by direct use of the senses or by recollecting observations previously made either by him/herself or by others. No matter if these conditions come by perception or by memory, they form the 'facts of the case.' According to Dewey ... They [facts] cannot be got out of the way by magic just because they are disagreeable .... observation and recollection must be used to the full so as not to glide over or to mistake important features (1 02). Since Dewey highly advocates the importance of observation, the first step of the reflection process was for each member to have the opportunity to share observations about the way the exercise was accomplished and their contribution. Group members will be instructed to state their role, factors contributing to completing the task, and factors that hindered the task. It is suggested that they state these observations without stating their personal 20

PAGE 28

interpretations or stating the conclusions they have drawn. Examples of stating observations correctly are as follows: -1 observed that the team members were not asking questions of each other. -We completed the task in 15 minutes and 1 0 seconds. -1 did not understand the problem presented. The above examples are correct because they are observable behaviors. Examples of observations stated incorrectly are as follows: -1 observed that the team members were not asking questions of each other, therefore, they must be mad at each other. -We must be really good. -Participants did not enjoy the task. These examples are stated incorrectly because they also contain interpretations and assumptions and conclusions about the observed behavior. The directions for this study will state that the participants are to share what their contributions are to the task, factors contributing to completing the task and factors hindering completion of the task. These items will be shared at the beginning of the reflection process. The researcher believes it is important for the group to begin their structured reflection process by stating observable data rather than their assumptions and individual conclusions. 21

PAGE 29

Once the facts are stated, the individual will have the opportunity to share their ideas, suggestions and/or possible solutions for making improvements. Dewey indicates that data (facts) and ideas are the two indispensable and correlative factors of all reflection activity (1 04). Cooperative Learning Most cooperative learning methods were originally developed with improving student achievement as the primary goal (Slavin, 31). "Cooperative behavior," according to Slavin, "is the participation and coordination of efforts between two or more individuals. This cooperative behavior between individuals is to assist in the achievement of goals" (4). "The essence of cooperative learning is assigning a group goal, such as a single product (for example, answers to a single set of math problems, or a single report) or as high a group average on an examination as possible ... (401). The literature surrounding the topic of cooperative learning is pertinent to this study because cooperative learning takes place in groups (or teams), and according to Sharan and Sharan . reflection ... is an integral part of cooperative learning" (92). In addition, the purpose of a cooperative learning group is to achieve a common goal. For this reason, the researcher thinks it 22

PAGE 30

is worthwhile to understand the nature of cooperative learning and the impact this strategy has on the learning process. The foundation provided by cooperative learning for this study is the research that demonstrates people learn more in cooperative groups versus individually. Slavin describes, in 1983, the results of forty-one studies conducted on cooperative learning. Overall, the effects of cooperative learning on student achievement are positive (121). A study was conducted by Yager, Johnson and Johnson in 1985 on the effects of cooperative learning in which oral discussion was structured and cooperative learning in which oral discussion was unstructured (60-66). This study is particularly relevant to this research project in that it measured the difference between structured and unstructured oral discussion. The purpose of this cooperative learning study was to test the validity of the following assumptions: 23

PAGE 31

1. Students learning within cooperative learning groups will subsequently perform better than will students who have worked by themselves to learn the same material. 2. Oral explanation, summarization, and elaboration of the material being learned, as well as listening carefully to check the accuracy of others' oral summaries, positively affects achievement and retention. (That is, one of the variables differentiating cooperative from individualistic learning is that, within cooperative learning groups, students explain material to each other, listen carefully to each other's explanations, and arrive at a joint understanding of what is being studied.) 3. Students learn more when they collaborate with peers of diverse levels. For this Yager, Johnson and Johnson study on cooperative learning groups with structured, oral discussion situations, students were given specific role assignments. Individuals rotated positions as either the Learning Leader or the Learning Listener. The Learning Leader was responsible for restating and summarizing the main points of that day's lesson, trying to be as accurate as possible, so that the entire group could understand the concepts. Responsibilities of the Learning Listener were to ask probing questions to encourage the Learning Leader to explain better the content being studied, to recall areas of content that were left out and to discuss ideas or facts that were summarized incorrectly. In cooperative learning with unstructured oral discussion, students are told only to collaborate without 24

PAGE 32

specific role assignments. Instead of assigning roles in the structured reflection study, the questions developed for the structured reflection activity are probing to encourage the group members to look at their processes, their assumptions and perceptions that were prevalent during the exercise. The students' active summarizing and the collaborator's questioning and correcting of the summaries facilitate the acquisition and storage of the material being learned (61). Yager states, "Actively participating in the learning situation by explaining the material being learned to others and checking carefully the accuracy of others' explanations may be necessary for effective learning (62). When students are passive learners or when they study alone, the important cognitive processes do not occur. In addition, oral summary, as an activity provides a review that serves (through further encoding) to consolidate and strengthen what was learned and to provide relevant feedback about the degree to which mastery and understanding was achieved (61). Therefore, it is hoped that the group verbally discussing the answers to the questions during structured reflection will cause relevant feedback about what worked well and what did not work well in their process for completing the exercise. The dependent variable in this Yager, Johnson and Johnson study was student achievement. Three measures of achievement were taken of 25

PAGE 33

students in three levels of academic ability, defined as High, Medium and Low. The measures of achievement include: 1. Daily achievementindicated by the accuracy and quantity of the work done in class by the groups and individuals. 2. Unit achievement measured by two 35-item multiple-choice tests, one given after 9 days and one given at the end of the study. 3. Retention achievementmeasured by a 50-item multiple-choice test given 18 days after the end of the unit. The results of this study indicated that cooperative groups consistently achieved higher scores than did the students in the individualistic condition on the daily achievement measures. The students in the structured-oral-discussion cooperation condition achieved a 93% accuracy rate on their daily assignments, the students in the unstructured-oral-discussion cooperation condition achieved an 87% accuracy rate, and the students in the individualist condition achieved only a 61% accuracy rate. Table 1 summarizes the mean score per each group. Test Post Retention Structured Cooperation High Med. Low 67.75 65.56 66.50 48.75 46.78 44.75 Unstructured Cooperation High Med. 54.13 51.56 37.13 34.56 Low 50.63 34.10 Individualistic High Med. Low 43.63 45.78 40.60 28.51 24.78 19.63 Table 2.1 Mean Score on Achievement Measures by Ability Groups. 26

PAGE 34

The overall F tests indicate that there was a significant condition effect on the post achievement test. Comparisons revealed that students in the structured-oral-discussion cooperative condition scored higher than did the students in the other two conditions, and students in the unstructured-oral discussion cooperative condition scored higher than did the students in the individualistic condition. This was true for students of all levels of academic ability. On the retention test, the overall F tests indicate that there were significant condition effects. Comparisons revealed that on the retention test, the achievement was highest in the structured-oral-discussion cooperative condition and lowest in the individualistic condition. This was true for students from all three ability levels. The results of this study, indicate that structured reflection, as a group, may positively impact the group's ability to perform their exercise better than those groups without structured, group reflection. In 1986, Yager, Johnson and Johnson conducted another study with 84 third-grade American students to determine the impact of cooperative learning. Members discussed how well their group was functioning and how they could improve its effectiveness. The results indicate that the high-, medium-, and low-achieving students in the cooperation with group processing conditions achieved higher scores than did the students in the other two conditions (cooperative learning without any group processing and individualistic learning). "Having members of cooperative learning groups discuss how well their group is functioning and how they may improve its effectiveness had a sizable and positive effect on student achievement" (403). The researcher believes this provides valuable background for this 27

PAGE 35

study on reflection, since the structured reflection process will encourage the group to review their processes that were used to accomplish their exercise. Johnson and Johnson give four important reasons for group processing: 1. When groups first begin to work together, they tend to be very task oriented. Processing gives the groups the time they need to maintain effective working relationships. 2. Processing helps members become aware of and develop the collaborative skills they need to work effectively in teams. 3. Processing gives the members a chance to give each other positive feedback on their use of collaborative skills. 4. Processing reminds individuals to practice their new collaborative skills consistently, not just occasionally (406). The researcher hopes that structured reflection will help the group members, in this study on structured reflection, focus on their collaborative skills and take time-out to evaluate and make recommendations for improving their collaborative processes. Graves and Graves suggest that reflection include the following components: Identifying what happened in the session that helped or hindered the group in reaching its goal. Students may observe that, "Today no one interrupted during the discussion," or "Not everyone had a chance to talk." 28

PAGE 36

Analyzing why things happened the way they did and how the group can do things differently next time. "Next time we'll choose a timekeeper to stop us after three minutes so that everybody' II get a turn." Generalizing how skills learned in this session can be applied in new situations. "It's so nice when everyone listens ... I guess I'll try to listen more patiently next time we work in groups." Goal setting for task and group maintenance skills. "Our group has to practice making sure than everyone gets a turn to speak; we'll keep on choosing a timekeeper till we're good at it" (98). These components, suggested by Graves and Graves, for reflection are similar to those suggested by Lee and Barnett (page 42). The researcher tied these various suggestions together to developed the structured reflection process for this study. It is also mentioned by Graves and Graves that reflection can be a written or an oral activity, though they do not mention if one method is better than the other (11 0). Suggestions on methods for reflection in cooperative groups include: Each student can write down his/her impressions of the activity and then share them with a partner. Afterwards, one pair can share with another, and finally the teacher can lead a whole-class summary. The teacher may ask the students to relate to any specific aspect of cooperation he or she wishes to reinforce, such as listening to others, encouraging participation, helping others, and so forth. The students may write down their answers to three questions: What did the group do well together? What needs improvement? How can the group improve the way it works together? 29

PAGE 37

The researcher used both written and oral methods for reflection. The groups that reflect individually were asked to write their answers to the questions. The groups who participated in group reflection were given the opportunity to write their answers and then discuss their answers with each other. Learning Models The learning model presented by Kolb (see Figure 2.1) is one of several models that similarly describe the process of learning. Figure. 2.1. Learning Model Circle Demonstrates that Learning is a Continuous Cycle 30

PAGE 38

Senge summarizes these four stages: Doing --performing a task. Reflecting--becoming an observer of your own thinking and acting. It is asking, How well did it go? What were we thinking and feeling during the process? What underlying belief affected the way we handled it? Do we see our goals differently now? Connecting --creating ideas and possibilities for action and rearranging them into new form. In this state, you look for links between your potential action and other patterns of behavior in the system around you. Deciding-settling on a method for action (1994, 60). J. William Pfeiffer presents the Experiential Learning Cycle. This cycle is a five-step process that includes: 1. Experiencing 2. Publishing 3. Processing 4. Generalizing 5. Applying Steps two, three and four in this model are similar to the Reflective Observation step in Kolb's Learning Model. These steps require a person to state their observations, process their assumptions, thoughts and beliefs and draw conclusions that can be applied to future experiences. Pfeiffer describes the Processing step: 31

PAGE 39

... the pivotal step in experiential learning. It is the systematic examination of commonly shared experience by the people involved. This is the "group-dynamics" phase of the cycle, in which participants essentially reconstruct the patterns and interactions of the activity. . This 'talking-through' part of the cycle is critical, and it cannot be either ignored or designed spontaneously if useful learning is to be developed ... Unprocessed data can be experienced as 'unfinished business' by participants and can distract them from further learning (6). Hughes refers to Kolb's belief that people learn more from their experiences when they spend time thinking about them (21). They have extended this idea to their leadership development program and the use of an action-observation-reflection model, also referred to as The Spiral of Experience. Hughes states, "If a person acts but does not observe the consequences of her actions or reflect on their significance and meaning, then it makes little sense to say she has learned from an experience" (23). Mention of the concept of singleversus double-loop learning is also valuable for this study. Single-loop learning may solve a presenting problem, but it does not solve the root cause of why the problems may exist. Argyris uses the example of a thermostat to describe single-loop learning. A thermostat detects when the air around it is too hot or too cold and corrects the situation by turning the heat on or off accordingly. To solve problems, we cannot simply design new actions, "We must first alter the governing values" (1992, 93). Altering governing values is referred to as double-loop learning. 32

PAGE 40

The example of the thermostat cannot be used for double-loop learning as the thermostat cannot question the temperature setting. "Single-loop learning describes a kind of learning between the individual and the environment in which the learner seeks relatively little feedback that may significantly confront his/her fundamental ideas or actions" (94). There is relatively little public testing of ideas against valued information. "Double-loop learning involves a willingness to confront one's own views and an invitation to others to do so, too" (Hughes, 32). This body of theory and practice is "action science" in which the skills of reflection and inquiry have emerged (Senge, 1994, 264). Chris Argyris and Donald Schon, theorists and educators, have promoted "action science" that is aimed at understanding the attitudes which underlie human action and produce effective learning in organizations. Out of "action science" have come tools to help people develop skills of reflection and inquiry. One of those tools is known as the Ladder of Inference. The Ladder of Inference as described by Argyris: Picture a ladder. On the first rung of the ladder are the relatively directly observable data, such as the actual conversations and non verbal cues that are used. 33

PAGE 41

The second rung represents the culturally understood meanings that individuals with different views or different axes to grind would agree were communicated during the conversation. For example, a superior or subordinate might agree that the former told the latter that his performance was unacceptable. The third rung of the ladder represents the meanings that individuals impose on the second-rung meanings. For example, the superior might say that he was honest and forthright. The subordinate might call the same actions blunt and insensitive. The fourth rung represents the theories of action individuals use to craft their conversations and to understand the actions of other people. This ladder of inference shows, for example, that the evaluations or judgments people make automatically are not concrete or obvious. They are abstract and highly inferential. Individuals treat them as if they were concrete because they produce them so automatically that they do not even think that their judgments are highly inferential (1990, 88). Considering the insight of Argyris, the Ladder of Inference model, and Dewey's advocating of "observable data," the researcher believes that the reflection process should begin by the participants sharing facts that are observable in order to make the reflection time valuable and worthwhile. Failure to begin with the facts may result in participants sharing assumptions and inferences versus sharing observable data. The potential downside would be that the reflection process would be based on inaccuracies or assumptions. If the reflection process begins with inaccuracies or assumptions that are not shared by the entire group, other participants may 34

PAGE 42

be unwilling to share ideas and potential solutions for improvement. The researcher believes it is important to begin the reflection process using data that is observable to increase the chances the participants will openly share in the reflection process. 35

PAGE 43

Literature on Reflection Learning organization can mean an organization which learns and/or an organization which encourages learning in its people. It should do both. -Charles Handy, Age of Unreason Reflective Teaching According to Robert J. Stevenson, Executive Director of the Association of Teacher Educators, "The central element of quality in education is, of course, the teacher. Efforts are underway in most states to improve the preservice and inservice education of teachers to ensure greater competence in both knowledge of subject matter and techniques of teaching ... Truly professional teachers are thoughtful and reflective" (Association of Teacher Educators, v). In 1987, Donald Cruickshank began to pay attention to the matter of improving the teacher's reflective capacity in order to improve the process of learning to teach. "Preservice and inservice teachers who learn reflective teaching acquire a simple yet powerful way to consider their teaching carefully and hence to become more thoughtful and alert students of teaching" (Cruickshank, 17). The following is a summary of the Reflective Teaching Process: 36

PAGE 44

1. In a class of preservice/inservice teachers, one person is chosen to be the "designated teacher;" the remaining are the learners. 2. The designated teacher is provided with a reflective teaching lesson (RTL) to teach to the group at a future time. 3. The designated teacher prepares to teach the RTL in a way that will maximize learner achievement and satisfaction. 4. The designated teacher teaches the group. Upon the conclusion of the time assigned, the post-tests are distributed. 5. Thirty-five minutes are allowed for the learners to complete the test. As the post-tests are collected, a Learner Satisfaction Form is distributed. 6. Once the Learner Satisfaction Forms are distributed the designated teacher uses the Suggested Questions for Use in Small Group Discussions (Figure 2.2) to engage the groups in considering the shared teaching and learning experience. The questions are designed to raise learners' level of thinking about teaching and learning ... as Schon called "reflection-on-action (18). "Activity not checked by observation and analysis may be enjoyable, but intellectually it usually goes nowhere, neither to greater clarification nor to new ideas and experience (Cruickshank, 18). Therefore, according to Cruickshank, the major purpose and benefit of reflective teaching are to help teachers become wiser and to encourage them to become life-long students of teaching (39). Just as Cruickshank encourages teachers to become lifelong learners of teaching, the researcher believes employees must become life-long learners of their improvement process. 37

PAGE 45

1. What probably most influenced the way this lesson was taught: the content, the learners, the context or setting, the teacher's views of and experiences with teaching, available materials, other? How did these factors probably affect how the lesson was taught? 2. Given the post-test results, to what extent did learners learn? 3. Based upon the comments made on the Learner Satisfaction Forms, to what extent did instruction result in satisfaction? 4. What does the group believe contributed most to achievement and satisfaction? 5. What does the group believe got in the way of achievement and satisfaction? 6. What did you learn or recall about effective teaching and learning? Enumerate at least two insights. 7. How do you feel about the teaching-learning experience? Figure 2.2 Suggested Questions for Use in Small Group Discussions (Cruickshank, 29) In 1981, a study was conducted to test the following three hypotheses: (a) that reflective teaching would promote preservice teachers' ability to think and hence to express themselves in a complex manner when discussing the act of teaching and the process of learning, (b) that positive change would occur in students' attitudes toward student teaching, and (c) that subjects would identify that a greater number and a wider variety of variables exist 38

PAGE 46

during teaching. The results of this study supported the first hypothesis, the principle claim of reflective teaching. The second hypothesis was moderately supported, and the third was not supported (Cruickshank, 43). Though the hypotheses for the study on Reflective Teaching are different from the questions being explored in this study on structured reflection, the researcher thinks the above study is relevant in that it demonstrates a change in the teacher's ability to better instruct. There was a positive correlation between reflection and improvement that is a critical basis for this study. Day states, .... 'reflection' is identified as being an essential part of learning which itself is under-researched." As a result of the lack of research and the inability to determine if reflective behavior exists, researchers have begun to develop a 'set of critical attributes of reflection' in order to distinguish reflective teachers from their less reflective colleagues. The following are four attributes of reflective practice: 1. solving problems and reconstructing meaning 2. developing a stance towards inquiry 3. existing along a continuum or 'reflective spectrum' 4. occurring within a social context (Day, 84). Day summarizes various literature on methods of reflection. Those methods included journal writing as a means of reflection, videotaping and 39

PAGE 47

autobiography, use of metaphor and imaging. "All of this work is essentially concerned with the deconstruction and reconstruction of meaning. Its proponents recognize, either implicitly or explicitly, the existence of a 'reflective spectrum' through which personal theories may be examined and made public" (85). The contribution of Day's article to this research project is the recognition that there is little research on reflection and that there are multiple methods for promoting reflection. The methods mentioned by Day may be valuable methods for reflection and a worthwhile study in the future. At this point, the researcher will focus on "structured questioning" as the method for encouraging reflection for this study. Reflective Questioning Ginny V. Lee and Bruce G. Barnett wrote an article entitled, "Using Reflective Questioning to Promote Collaborative Dialogue." According to Lee and Barnett, "One powerful form of reflection occurs when educators engage in professional dialogue with each other in small groups" (16). Based on their experiences over the past decade in teaching reflective questioning skills to educators and staff developers, they found that Reflective Questioning creates opportunities for individuals to reflect aloud, to be heard by one or 40

PAGE 48

more colleagues, and to be prompted to expand and extend thinking through follow-up questions. Reflection is used in the Peer Assisted Leadership (PAL) program where peer colleagues engage in inquiry, reflection and analysis about their own work. Reflections may include thoughts about how and why events unfolded, feelings associated with events, exploration of alternatives, plans for next steps and so forth. According to Lee and Barnett, "By thinking about the events, the observed person achieves a greater awareness of self and an increased understanding of how he or she enacts the role of school leader'' (17). Reflective Questioning is a technique in which one person prepares and asks questions that are designed to provide opportunities for the respondent to explore his or her knowledge, skills, experiences, attitudes, beliefs and values. It is important to note that Reflective Questioning encourages the respondent to explore his or her own thinking; it is not intended to direct the respondent to a conclusion pre-determined by the questioner. Therefore, the questions in this research project are designed by the researcher to encourage the group members to explore their processes, what has contributed and hindered them in completing the exercise. The 41

PAGE 49

questions are not prescriptive, nor are they tailored to direct the respondent to a particular conclusion pre-determined by the researcher. Lee and Barnett provide the following four guidelines to help the questioners prepare reflective questions: 1. Base questions on the respondent's own experiences. For questions to encourage a respondent to reflect, they must make sense to the person. When people reflect, they are exploring their own experiences. Individuals can reflect on others' experiences only in reference to themselves. 2. Word questions in neutral, non-judgmental ways. Questions that use loaded language will be more likely to inhibit the reflective process than to support it. Questions should avoid implying that the questioner has the correct answer, expects an appropriate response, or is engaged in assessment or evaluation. 3. Keep an overall purpose in mind. Again for questions to make sense to individuals, there needs to be some reason for the questioner to be asking them, some purpose for the interaction. Reflective questions can assist during the early stages of forming a professional relationship and later as part of self-assessment and in planning future actions. There is no single "right purpose" for reflective questioning. To be useful to participants, however, the exchange should have some purpose about which the participants are in accord. 4. Be prepared to follow up initial questions. A reflective dialogue develops through interaction. The initial questions may open the door to reflection, but the process will not be sustained unless the questioner is prepared to go the next step. This means having follow-up questions in mind and adjusting the succeeding questions in response to what the respondent is saying (18). 42

PAGE 50

Lee and Barnett have encountered the belief that meaningful reflection will occur only if the "right" questions are asked. They found this not to be the case; rather, some very basic and even obvious types of questions are helpful. Some general types of questions that facilitate the reflective process include: clarifying questions, purpose and consequence questions and linking questions. Utilizing the sample questions by Cruickshank (page 38), suggestions from Graves and Graves (page 28), suggestions by Lee and Barnett (above) and the theory of action science, the researcher has developed the five questions below. These questions will serve as "structured reflection" for this study: 1. Describe and discuss your role in the exercise you have just completed (i.e. what were your contributions?). 2. What factors do you believe contributed most to completing the task? 3. What do you believe got in the way of achieving even better results? 4. Describe and discuss what you learned about the group during the exercise you just completed. 5. Describe and discuss how the group can be more effective in future exercises. 43

PAGE 51

The researcher believes these questions build off of each other. They are probing, but they do not suggest a predetermined answer or outcome. Structured Reflection During 1992 1993, a nine-week study was conducted to determine the effects of a teaching innovation designed to help make students' learn from laboratory experience more effectively. This Structured Reflection and Discussion Study at the Department of Physiology and Pharmacology at the University of Strathclyde was based on group-working and a learning cycle that emphasized structured reflection and group discussion to improve group working and investigative methods. The stages of the learning cycle were Planning (of experiment), Implementation (carry-out the investigation), Reflection and Discussion (on effectiveness of planning and implementation) and Interpretation (of findings of experiment). Students then planned the next experiment and repeated the cycle. The reflection and discussion stage was a two-step process involving individual private reflection followed by group discussion. Students consciously evaluated their own and their groups' working methods and investigative strategies, and then externalized and shared these private reflections in group discussion sessions. It was hoped 44

PAGE 52

that this process would help students gain a better understanding of what they were doing and why, and that this would lead to learning improvements over a series of practicals (Nicol, 304). In the above study, the task was to identify the mechanism of action of an unknown drug on selected cardiovascular preparations. The convergence of evidence from many different sources convinced the tutors that there were progressive improvements in students' learning over the cycles of practicals. Tutors observed that students had developed group working skills. They observed there was a gradual change in groups working over the nine weeks ... from working as individuals with little or no direction, most students became part of structured and cohesive groups able to produce protocols that were well thought-out and posters of a particularly high quality" (Nicole, 307). The conclusion of the study is summarized: This project showed how group-working and structured reflection and discussion could be used to enrich student learning from practicals. Students improved their interpretative and planning skills and their ability to relate theory to laboratory practice. In addition, students developed skills and qualities, interpersonal communication, collaborate working, confidence and self esteem--not normally focused on in science-based courses. Finally, recognition of the success of the project by the Teaching Committee has led to a decision that some of the principles inherent in this form of laboratory learning should be adopted in the lower years of pharmacy and joint honours courses ( Nicole 31 0). 45

PAGE 53

CHAPTER 3 THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND DEFINITIONS The research questions for this study on structured reflection include: Will structured reflection, as a group, impact the group's ability to complete the exercise more efficiently and effectively relative to groups without structured reflection? Will structured reflection, as a group, impact the group's ability to complete the exercise more efficiently and effectively relative to groups using individual, structured reflection? Will structured reflection, as individuals, impact the group's ability to complete the exercise more efficiently and effectively relative to groups without structured reflection? Based on the literature search, several phrases, words and definitions were uncovered that define the process of structured reflection on which this researcher is focusing. John Dewey describes reflective thinking as," ... the kind of thinking that consists in turning a subject over in the mind and giving it serious and consecutive consideration" (3). Johnson and Johnson describe group processing as, "reflecting on a group session to (1) describe what member actions were helpful and unhelpful, and (2) make decisions about what actions to continue or change" (402). Finally, L. Valverde provided an operational definition of reflection for individuals: 46

PAGE 54

The [person] must examine his or her situation, behavior, practices, effectiveness, and accomplishments. Reflection means asking basic questions of oneself. The basic and comprehensive question during reflection is, What am I doing and why? Reflection is a form of slightly distorted self-evaluation -distorted in the sense that judgment is emphasized rather than data collection. The individual asks value laden questions and responds on stored selected data (memory) and then concludes whether he or she is satisfied or dissatisfied. Reflection, then, is an individual's needs assessment and continued self-monitoring or satisfaction with effectiveness. As with any type of evaluation, reflection should be formative, that is, periodic, constructive and deliberate (9). For the purpose of this study, the constitutive definition of reflection was defined as careful consideration of past events with the purpose of learning in order to positively impact future events. Learning, as defined in Webster's Dictionary, is gaining knowledge, comprehension, or mastery through experience or study. Though it is recognized that there are several steps in the learning process, reflection is the independent variable that was focused on during the course of this study. Building off of Valverde's definition of reflection, the researcher operationally defined structured reflection (in the context of group reflection), as occurring in a group when the individuals together give careful consideration of past events with the purpose of learning in order to positively impact future events. Reflection occurs when the group members participate in a conversation to discuss their answers to the following questions developed by the researcher: 47

PAGE 55

1. Describe and discuss your role in the exercise you have just completed (i.e. what were your contributions?). 2. What factors do you believe contributed most to completing the task? 3. What do you believe got in the way of achieving even better results? 4. Describe and discuss what you learned about the group during the exercise you just completed. 5. Describe and discuss how the group can be more effective in future exercises. The root of the word conversation means "to turn together'' (Isaacs, 35). Therefore, as a group, they turn together (or discuss) their observations and answers to the questions. The researcher assumes that people may spend time in a reflective mode as individuals, though probably quite unstructured. Therefore, the researcher wanted to understand if the results derived from groups who participated in structured, individual reflection or structured, group reflection are different. Individual reflection results when the group members answer the questions outlined above but do not discuss their answers with other group members. The researcher required that the answers be written to assure that each individual participates in the process. 48

PAGE 56

The researcher is testing to determine if reflection enables them to perform their task better and what type of reflection (individual or group) has the greatest impact on the results of the task. For the purpose of this study, the constitutive definition of better is defined in terms of greater effectiveness (accuracy) and efficiency (less time) in performing the given tasks. 49

PAGE 57

CHAPTER4 THE STUDY DESIGN This study was designed to quantitatively measure how structured reflection impacts a group's efficiency and effectiveness .. The researcher believes that this study is the beginning of many studies that can be completed on the impact and value of structured reflection. Structured reflection has the potential of impacting many aspects of group behavior and group performance. Structured reflection can be studied to measure its impact on creativity, group dynamics, and organizational health, using measures such as adaptability, creating a sense of identity and the capacity to test reality (Schein, 118). The researcher chose to measure structured reflection's impact on productivity for this study due to the perceived need for productivity to be increased and improved in many workplaces. The researcher has observed that many employees are working long hours and attempting to work faster, but they do not see much progress being made because the workload stays the same or gets more burdensome. The researcher hopes to make inroads in identifying other ways to increase productivity for the benefit of individuals and organizations. 50

PAGE 58

For the purpose of this study, there were four control groups and eight test groups (four groups for structured, individual reflection and four groups for structured, group reflection). Each group consisted of five individuals who were not part of an intact work team. The researcher believed that it was important that the participants in this study to not be an intact work team for this initial study so that the researcher would have as much control as possible of the variables of group dynamics. Groups of individuals who work together on an intact team may be familiar with each others' work style, learning style, communication style and leadership style. These dynamics could have possible skewed the results of the study as they are likely to be different from group to group. The Control Groups were labeled Groups A 1 A4. The Test Groups labeled 81 -84 reflected individually and the Test Groups labeled C1 C4 reflected as a group. This study on structured reflection had built-in structured reflection time for both sets of test groups (81 -84 and C1 C4). The structured reflection took place in between the three tasks of the exercise. The structured reflection time for Test Groups 81 -84 and Test Groups C1 C4 was for fifteen minutes. The researcher discovered, during the pilot study, that it was necessary to set a time frame for the structured reflection to ensure that the group members spent time reflecting instead of 51

PAGE 59

disregarding the structured reflection process. Though the two sets of Test Groups reflected in a different manner, the researcher required that they spend the same amount of time in the structure reflection process so the groups could be compared with each other. Sampling For this study, a total of twelve groups were used. Each group consisted of five individuals, therefore, a total of sixty individuals participated in this study. The researcher solicited graduate students from the University of Colorado, Denver as participants. This study took place on several different occasions in order to accommodate the number of participants. The researcher contacted the Graduate Schools and asked for permission to use various classes for conducting the study. Once permission was granted, the researcher worked with the professors to determine the date and location of the study. On the agreed upon date, the researcher attended the class. At that time, individuals were randomly assigned to groups A (Control group), 8 (Test group with structured, individual reflection) or C (Test group with structured, group reflection). The groups were not told about the variables that were to be measured. They were just told to follow directions written in the envelopes. 52

PAGE 60

Business Simulation Exercise Each group of five people were given an In-Basket exercise to complete (Appendices B-1, B-2 and B-3). The In-Basket exercise consisted of three items (tasks) that were to be addressed according to instructions outlined by the researcher. For each item in the In-Basket, criteria were established that needed to be considered and addressed in some manner by the group. The control groups (Groups A1 A4) were asked to complete the three tasks in the exercise. There was no time established between tasks for structured reflection. Test groups B1 B4 were asked to completed the same three tasks. Upon completion of item one, the group was given fifteen minutes for structured, individual reflection. The same arnount of time was set aside after completing item two and before beginning item three. The amount of time (fifteen minutes) spent on structured reflection was not included in the total time of the exercise to arrive at an accurate time for task completion. Test groups C1 C4 were asked to complete the same three tasks as Groups A and B. Upon completion of item one the group was given fifteen minutes for structured, group reflection. The researcher discovered in the pilot session that the individuals in the group need a few minutes of 53

PAGE 61

"individual time" to review the questions and write a few notes. Therefore, the researcher gave the groups (C1 C4) five minutes to review the questions and write notes and ten minutes to discuss their reflections together, for a total of fifteen minutes. The same process was used for these test groups after completing item two and before beginning item three. The amount of time spent in reflection (fifteen minutes) was subtracted from the total time of theexercise to arrive at an accurate time for task completion. Measures Each group was measured on two dimensions. The first was the efficiency in which they completed the exercise. The timer recorded the amount of time it took for the group to complete each task. The time spent reflecting was not included in the results for Groups 81 -84 and C1 C4. The second dimension the groups were measured on was their effectiveness. The researcher outlined certain criteria to be addressed by the group for each task of the exercise. Once the groups completed the exercise, the researcher coded the results to identify what criteria had been met or not met. To determine whether the criteria was met or not met, the researcher reviewed the written documents that were the result of the exercise. If a word, 54

PAGE 62

sentence or phrase was written down for the criteria, it was counted as correct. This was an objective way to measure effectiveness. The criteria for each task is included with the simulations in Appendices 8-1, 8-2 and 8-3. These two dimensions, efficiency and effectiveness, were chosen because it is critical for teams to accomplish their work timely while maintaining a high degree of quality. The difference in time for completing each task was compared with that of the control group and the other treated group. Those groups who completed the exercise in less time, while maintaining their effectiveness, were to be considered more efficient and effective than the groups who performed the task using more time with less accuracy. In additional to the quantitative data that was gathered for this study, qualitative data was also solicited in the form of a questionnaire (see Appendix C). Each participant in Groups 81 -84 and C1 C4 was requested to complete the Follow-up Questionnaire at the end of the entire exercise. The purpose of the questionnaire was to get individual input on the perceived value of structured reflection. 55

PAGE 63

Sequence of Study The sequence of the study is defined below for each set of groups: GROUPS A 1 A4 (Control Groups) The group was given a Business Simulation Exercise to complete as a group. Nine envelopes (numbered accordingly) containing the tasks, criteria and questions were placed on the table. Timer handed out instructions and synopsis of AGC Corporation. The group had three minutes to read the written instructions for the exercise. No questions were to be asked of the timer nor of the other group members during this three minute period. The timer timed the three minutes for reading instructions and then told the group to open Envelope 1 and begin the exercise. At that time the timer began the stop watch. The group was to complete the exercise per the written instructions. For the control groups, there was be no structured reflection time between tasks during the exercise. When the group has completed the exercise, they advised the timer who then stopped the stopwatch and record the amount of time it took the group to complete the task. TEST GROUPS B1 B4 (Structured, Individual Reflection) The group as given a Business Simulation Exercise to complete as a group. Nine envelopes (numbered accordingly) containing the tasks, criteria and questions were placed on the table. Timer handed out instructions and synopsis of AGC Corporation. The participants had three minutes to read the written instructions for the exercise and the company synopsis. No questions were to be asked of the timer nor of the other group members during this three minute period. The timer timed the three minutes for reading instructions and told the group when to begin the task. At that time the timer started the stop watch. The group completed the exercise per the written instructions. Upon completing the first task of the exercise, the instructions told the group to advise the timer when they had completed. At that time, the timer 56

PAGE 64

stopped the watch and handed each individual a sheet of paper with the structured reflection questions. The timer gave them fifteen minutes to answer the questions individually. No discussion about the task was permitted during these fifteen minutes. The fifteen minutes allocated for structured reflection are not included in the results of the exercise. When fifteen minutes concluded, the timer instructed the group to open the next envelope and resume their work on the exercise. At that time, the timer began timing the second task. Upon completing the second task of the exercise, the instructions told the group to advise the timer when they had completed. At that time, the timer stopped the watch and handed each individual a sheet of paper with the structured reflection questions. The timer gave them fifteen minutes to answer the questions individually. No discussion about the task was permitted during these fifteen minutes. The fifteen minutes allocated to structured reflection are not be included in the results of the exercise. When the fifteen minutes had concluded, the timer instructed the group to open the next envelope and resume their work on the exercise. When the group had completed the third task of the exercise, they advised the timer who then stopped the stop watch and record the amount of time it took the group to complete the third task. TEST GROUPS C1 C4 (Structured, Group Reflection) The group was given a Business Simulation Exercise to complete as a group. Nine envelopes (numbered accordingly) containing the tasks, criteria and questions were placed on the table. Timer handed out instructions and synopsis of AGC Corporation. The participants were given three minutes to read the written instructions for exercise and the company synopsis. No questions were to be asked of the timer nor of the other group members during this three minute period. The timer timed the three minutes for reading instructions and told the group when to begin the task. At that time the facilitator began the stop watch. The group was instructed to complete the exercise per the written instructions. Upon completing the first task of the exercise, the group advised the timer when they had completed. At that time, the timer stopped the watch and 57

PAGE 65

handed each individual a sheet of paper with the structured reflection questions. The timer gave the group five minutes to read the questions and write notes. Then, the timer gave them ten minutes to discuss and answer the questions as a group. The fifteen minutes allocated to reflection was not be included in the results of the exercise. When fifteen minutes had concluded, the timer instructed the group to open the next envelope and resume their work on the exercise. At that time, the timer began timing the second exercise. Upon completing the second task of the exercise, the group advised the timer when they had completed. At that time, the timer stopped the watch and handed each individual a sheet of paper with the structured reflection questions. The timer gave the group five minutes to read the questions and write notes. Then, the timer gave them ten minutes to discuss and answer the questions as a group. The fifteen minutes allocated to reflection was not included in the results of the exercise. When fifteen minutes had concluded, the timer instructed the group to open the next envelope and resume their work on the exercise. At that time, the timer began timing the third task. When the group had completed the third task of the exercise, they advised the timer who then stopped the watch and recorded the amount of time it took the group to complete the third task. Timer's Responsibilities Each group was assigned a timer to administer and time the tasks in the exercise. Volunteers were solicited from the various study participants and colleagues of the researcher. The role of the timer varied depending on the group they were assigned. For groups in Category A, the responsibilities of the timer were to do the following: 58

PAGE 66

Hand-out instructions to each participant Give participant three minutes to read the instructions and advise them when three minutes had concluded. Ensure the envelopes with the instructions and tasks were on the table. Time and record how long it took the group to complete the exercise. For groups in Category 8, the responsibilities of the timer were to: Hand-out instructions to each participant Give participant three minutes to read the instructions and advise them when three minutes had concluded. Ensure the envelopes with the instructions and exercise tasks were on the table. Time and record how long it took the group to complete each task of the exercise Hand out sheets for structured, individual reflection between tasks. Ensure each participant wrote down their answers to the questions on the reflection sheet. Time fifteen minutes for the structured, individual reflection process. Advise the group when fifteen minutes had concluded for reflection and advise them to resume their exercise. For groups in Category C, the responsibilities of the timer were to: Hand-out instructions to each participant Give participant three minutes to read the instructions and advise them when three minutes had concluded. Ensure the envelopes with the instructions and exercise tasks were on the table. Time and record how long it took the group to complete each task of the exercise Hand out sheets for structured, group reflection between tasks. Ensure someone in the groups wrote down the answers to the questions on the reflection sheet. Time five minutes for the individuals to review the questions; time ten minutes for the structured, group reflection process. 59

PAGE 67

The timers were required to meet with the researcher prior to the study. At that time they were given instructions about the group activity, their role and responsibilities. (Timer's Instruction Sheets are included in Appendices B-1, 8-2 and B-3.) Each timer was provided a stop watch and a sheet for recording the time it took the group for completing the exercise. Study Environment The study took place in different locations, however, the rooms were appropriate for a group activity (i.e. tables, desks, chairs that could be arranged so participants could face each other). Nine envelopes were placed on each table (nine envelopes for each group). The envelopes were numbered and include the instructions for the exercise. Notepaper and pencils were also on each table for use by the participants. Study Analysis Data was gathered from the control groups, individual reflection groups and group reflection groups to determine their efficiency and effectiveness in completing the given tasks. Efficiency was determined by the amount of time it took the group to complete the task; effectiveness was determined by the percent of criteria addressed. 60

PAGE 68

The data were analyzed using the Kruskai-Wallis non parametric test. This test compared the averages of the control and treatment groups to determine if they were significantly different from one another. This test was chosen for the analysis of this study because of the small sample size. The Kruskai-Wallis test is a rank test, therefore, it bases its analysis on the ranking of the data points instead of the data points themselves. The only assumption required for a rank test is that the data be independent and random -a criteria met by this particular data set. Data was also gathered from the individual reflection groups and the group reflection groups in the form of a follow-up questionnaire to determine the perceived value of structured reflection. The two-factor ANOVA Analysis, was used for analyzing the results to determine if there was a difference in perception of the value of reflection between the two groups. 61

PAGE 69

CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS The research questions explored in this study were: Will structured reflection, as a group, impact the group's ability to complete the exercise more efficiently and effectively relative to groups without structured reflection? Will structured reflection, as a group, impact the group's ability to complete the exercise more efficiently and effectively relative to groups using individual, structured reflection? Will structured reflection, as individuals, impact the group's ability to complete the exercise more efficiently and effectively relative to groups without structured reflection? Twelve groups participated in this study. Four groups were Control Groups (known as A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4). Four groups were Test Groups (known as 8-1, 8-2, 8-3 and 8-4) who participated in structured individual reflection between tasks. Four additional groups were Test Groups (know as C-1, C-2, C-3 and C-4) who participated in structured group reflection between tasks. All groups in each category completed the same exercise that consisted of three tasks. Analysis was done on both the efficiency of the groups (amount 62

PAGE 70

of time for completing the exercise) and the effectiveness of the groups (percent of criteria addressed by the group). Decisions made regarding the statistical analysis of the data were based on the design and sample size of this research. The statistical test used was the Kruskai-Wallis nonparametric test. The Kruskai-Wallis test compared the averages of the control and treatment groups, determining if they are significantly different from one another. This test is a rank test, therefore, it bases its analysis on the ranking of the data point instead of the data points themselves. The Kruskai-Wallis test was identified as the best means for determining significance for this study because of the small sample size. Efficiency A group's efficiency was measured by the amount of time it took to complete each task within the exercise. An overall comparison was done between the Control groups, Individual Reflection groups and Group Reflection groups. A comparison was also done within each task between the three groups. 63

PAGE 71

The tests assumed the following hypothesis: (Null) Ho: no significant difference between the three groups (Alternative) Ha: significant differences are evident between the three groups The tests were performed at an alpha-level of .05. The results are displayed using the k-value and the p-value. The p-value is the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when in fact Ho is true. The p-value is more conservative than the alpha-level value. As a result, a p-value that is larger than the alphalevel (in this case .05), will lead to not rejecting the Ho hypothesis. However, if the p-value were lower than the alpha-level, Ho would be rejected in favor ofHa. For the series of tests performed for this analysis, all p-values exceeded the alpha-level of .05 (see Table 5.1). As a result, there was no significant difference between the groups and Ho cannot be rejected. Efficiency of Task Completion Task# K-Value P-Value Task 1 1.65 0.438 Task2 .27 0.874 Task3 5.35 0.070 Table 5.1 Kruskai-Walhs Analys1s Companng Data from Control Groups, Structured Individual Reflection Groups and Structured Group Reflection Groups at an Alpha-Level of .05; N=12 64

PAGE 72

Task 3 appears to be the task with the more variety of results between groups. In fact, for this particular task, the groups appear to be almost significantly different. This is evident by the fact that the p-value (0.070) is close to the alpha-level .05. For Task 2, however, the p-value is very large, suggesting similar time patterns between groups. Task 1 also reveals similar time patterns among the groups. The test results, reveal, however, no significant difference between the three groups. The Overall Comparison between the Control, Individual Reflection and Group Reflection showed a p value of 0.473, again, indicating no significance. A graphical analysis was done using comparison box plots. These plots reflect how each group was distributed. Figure 5.1 is the box plot for Task 1, the first task prior to any reflection time for Groups Band C. As is evident by the length of boxes, the control group appears to have a tighter distribution than the Individual and Group Reflection Groups. This means, as far as timing is concerned, the control groups completed their task within a more similar time frame. The Group Reflection group contained the widest distribution. This suggests that the Group Reflection group had a wider distribution of timings. 65

PAGE 73

A -Control B -Ind. Refl. C-Group Refl. 1.5 Min. 10 Min. 12.5 Min. 15 Min. Figure 5.1 Box Plot for Task 1 The box plots also reveal the average time of completing the task. This is indicated by the bar in the middle of each box. On average, the Control Group took less time than either test group for Task 1. Figure 5.2 is the box plot of the three groups for Task 2, the task completed after the first reflection period for Groups B and Groups C. These plots reveal a reversal of the results in Figure 5.1. In fact, all distributions seem to be varying more widely. The bar for the Control group appears to be the widest. However, there is not much difference between the groups as far as spread is concerned. 66

PAGE 74

A-Control B Ind. Refl. C Group Refl. 12 Min. 16 Min. 20 Min. 24 Min. Figure 5.2 Box Chart for Task 2 The average timing difference is also reversed in Task 2 from Task 1. In fact, Groups C Group Reflection appear to have finished the task in less time than Groups A and Groups B. The B Groups Individual Reflection appear to have finished the task using the most time. The research questions, for this study, explored whether this type of trend would be consistent throughout, demonstrating that group reflection had a significant impact on the efficiency of the group. As shown in Figure 5.3, the box plot of the groups for Task 3, this was not a trend throughout the entire study. For Task 3, the plots reveal little difference in spread between groups; Group AControl Group, on average, finished in less time than either treatment group. 67

PAGE 75

A-Control B -Ind. Refl. C Group Refl. L 5 Min. 10 Min. 15 Min. 20 Min. 25 Min. Figure 5.3 Box Chart for Task 3 Though no significance was found in the results of this study, the researcher did determine some differences that are of interest. For example, the results of Task 2 indicated no significance, however, the mean completion time for Groups C Group Reflection, were less than the mean completion time for Groups B Individual Reflection and Groups A Control Groups. This provides a small glimmer that reflection may potentially impact efficiency under certain circumstances. To better understand the results, the researcher reviewed comments from participants in Groups Band Groups C who completed the Follow-up Questionnaire at the end of the entire exercise. The researcher uncovered several possible factors that contributed to the results of Task 2 and Task 3. 68

PAGE 76

Many comments from participants in Group C Group Reflection, were positive towards the reflection process. The following comments were made in response to the questions about the impact of reflection from participants in Group C Group Reflection: [Reflection] Helped the group open up to each other. We kept talking more, We became more comfortable with each other. One possible factor contributing to a lesser mean time for Group C, in Task 2, may have been that the participants became more comfortable with each other than participants did in the other groups. This may be due to the fact that they were allowed to discuss their reflections. This may have contributed to Groups C working more efficiently on Task 2. This same comfortability, which potentially became even stronger after the second reflection period, may have ultimately had an adverse effect on time for Task 3. It may have contributed to more security and ease in discussing the issues with each other. As a result, participants may have spent more time exploring the issues and controversies in Task 3 prior to making a consensus decision and completing the exercise. Another factor that may have contributed to a larger mean time, for Groups 8 and Groups C, in Task 3, was fatigue and/or boredom. The had 69

PAGE 77

researcher discovered, during the pilot session, that a certain amount of time had to be established for reflection so that the participants would not rush through the process. The researcher settled on fifteen minutes as the amount of reflection time because the participants in Groups C Group Reflection required several minutes to write down their thoughts and then needed time to discuss their reflections. This fifteen minutes for reflection was established for both Groups B and C, however, it may have lent itself to fatigue and boredom as many groups did not use the full fifteen minutes for reflection. In waiting for the 15 minutes to expire, the participants sat quietly or partook in common activities to pass time (i.e. doodling). In conclusion, the results of the efficiency measures indicate no significance between the Control Groups, Individual Reflection Groups or Group Reflection Groups for this exercise. However, based on comments from the participants in Groups CGroup Reflection, and the lesser mean time for Group C during Task 2, the researcher believes there is sufficient reason to continue exploring the relationship between reflection and efficiency. 70

PAGE 78

Effectiveness A group's effectiveness was measured by the number of criteria (Appendices B-1, B-2 and B-3) that were addressed by the group. A comparison was done within each task between the three groups. For the series of tests performed for this analysis, all p-values exceeded the alpha-level of .05 (see Table 5.2). Effectiveness of Task Completion Task# K-Value P-Value Task 1 1.58 0.453 Task2 0.00 1 Task3 3.73 0.156 Table 5.2 Kruskai-Walhs Analys1s Companng Data from Control Groups, Structured Individual Reflection Groups and Structured Group Reflection Groups at an Alpha-Level of .05; N=12 Task 2 reveals no differences between the groups. In fact, when reviewing the raw data set, all groups received the same percentage score of 1 00. Upon review of the raw data for Task 2 and the wide distribution of time for Task 2, the data suggests that some groups may have discussed the issue of 71

PAGE 79

Task 2 quite thoroughly, thus addressing all the established criteria. The participants may have found Task 2 interesting and controversial as it dealt with a decision on offering a female engineer a higher salary in order to prevent her from joining a competing company. Other groups may have been discouraged by the content of the issue, therefore making their decision with little discussion and quickly moving on to addressing the criteria. Tasks 1 and 3 suggests no significant difference between the groups in effectiveness. In addition, the overall p-value of .162 suggests no significant difference amongst all groups. Based on the results of the effectiveness measure for the groups in this study, the researcher questions the method used to operationalize effectiveness. Since their was little variance in the groups' effectiveness, the researcher is concerned if the method of addressing criteria adequately measures a group's effectiveness. Based on the results of the effectiveness of the groups in this study, the researcher believes that additional research would be fruitful to better understand how to quantitatively measure group effectiveness. In addition, the researcher believes that additional research is warranted on the relation between reflection and group performance before any concrete conclusions are drawn. 72

PAGE 80

Follow-up Questionnaire The researcher asked each participant in Groups B and Groups C to complete a Follow-up Questionnaire (see Appendix C). The questionnaire included the following three questions about the impact of Structured Reflection: 1. To what extent did structured reflection positively impact the effectiveness of your group completing the exercise? 2. To what extent did structured reflection positively impact the amount of time required to complete the exercise? 3. To what extent did structured reflection impact your group's overall performance in completing the exercise? A five-point scale (1 =To No Extent, through 5 =To a Very Great Extent) was used in answering the above questions. The analysis of this data was based on the Two-Way ANOVA Model. This is a versatile statistical tool for studying the relation between a dependent variable (individual responses to the questionnaire) and two independent variable (the effect group type had on individual response and the effect question type had on individual response). The analysis not only 73

PAGE 81

considers the effect of the two independent variables, but also if the two independent variables interact. For this analysis, each respondent was treated as a separate entity, therefore, the sample size was forty. In looking at the raw data from the questionnaire, however, it was evident that the specific group, in which the individual was included, did impact the perceived value of Structured Reflection. For example, the raw data reflects consistently lower scores for participants in some groups and consistently higher scores for participants in other groups. Therefore, the quality of the conversation, group dynamics, etc., in the specific groups, appeared to have affected the perceived value of reflection. The AN OVA Table (Table 5.3) is composed of four basic parts: Question Effect, Group Effect, Interaction between Group and Question Effect and Error Effect. The table contains a value "SS," the sums of squares for each factor. This is a measurement of how much the model is explained by the factor. For instance, in this analysis, "question" effect had an "SS" value of 2.517 and the "group" effect had a value of 4.88; thus, the larger number, "group" effect, explains more of the variation in the model than the "question" effect. 74

PAGE 82

The ANOVA table contains an "MS" value, the Mean Squared Error value for each factor level. This value is "SS" divided by the corresponding factor's Degrees of Freedom (DF). It is the "MS" value which approximates the variance for each factor level. As a result, it is used to evaluate the significance of each factor. Thus, the F-Statistic compares the variance (MS) from each factor level over the variance of the error (MS of error). If the FValue is close to 1.00, the factor is not significant. A corresponding P-Value is calculated which confirms the results of the F-Test. If this value is greater than an Alpha-Level of .05, then the factor level is not significant. The Two-Way ANOVA was used to see if what group or which question asked had an effect on how the individual responded. First, type of question was analyzed. This was done to see if the individual responses were effected by the specific question asked. For instance, the overall response to question 1 may be different from question 2 and question 3. The assumed hypothesis of the effect of question type on individual response: (Null) Ho: no effect (Alternative) Ha: detect an effect The F-Statistic and P-Value for this test are shown in Table 5.3. From this analysis, the type of question had no effect on how the individual 75

PAGE 83

responded. This conclusion is evidenced by the P-Value 0.373 and supported by an F-Statistic of 1.00. Follow-Up Questionnaire Source Degrees of Sum of Mean Squared F-statistic P-Value Freedom Squares Error (Alpha-Level =.OS) Question 2 2.517 1.258 1.00 0.373 Group 1 4.800 4.800 3.80 0.054 Interaction 2 .0950 0.475 0.38 0.688 Error 114 114.100 1.264 Total 119 152.367 Table 5.3 Results of Two-Way ANOVA on Effect of Question Type and Effect of Group Type on Individual Responses; N=40 Next, the type of group was tested to see if it had an effect on individual response. The assumed hypothesis for this test: (Null) Ho: no effect (Alternative) Ha: detect an effect The F-Statistic and P-Value for this test are also shown in Table 5.3. From this analysis, the type of group had no effect on how the individual responded. This conclusion is evidenced by the P-Value .054 and supported by an F-Statistic of 3.80. Ho is concluded for this test, however, special note 76

PAGE 84

is made that the effect of group type on individual response is nearly significant. This is evident in the closeness of the F-statistic with the *FStatistic: F < *F 3.8 < 3.848 Additional support for this near significance is by a P-Value of 0.054 with an Alpha-Level of .05. As a result of the above analysis, there does appear to be evidence that the group, which the individual was a member, had a borderline effect on how the participant responded to the overall questionnaire. Because of this borderline effect, further analysis was done to see how, overall, the two groups differed in their responses. A Bonferroni confidence interval of 95 percent was used to compare the overall difference between the responses. Figure 5.4 demonstrates that overall, Group 8 Individual Reflection responded lower than Group CGroup Reflection. The parentheses do not overlap the means (indicated by*) of each group, therefore, this illustrates the borderline significant readings from the above analysis. 77

PAGE 85

MEAN Group B 2.92 ----*---Group C 3.32 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 Figure 5.4 Bonferroni Confidence Interval at 95 Percent Comparing Overall Differences Between Group Responses Also tested in the Two-Way ANOVA Model was the interaction effect--that is, if the combination of specific question and specific group had an effect on the response. From the F-Statistic (0.38) as well as the P-Value (0.688), no interaction between the two effects was present In conclusion, it appears the type of question asked had no effect on how the individual responded. The type of group, however, had borderline significance on the type of response from the individual. It appears that Group CGroup Reflection gave higher scores than Group B -Individual Reflection. This indicates that the participants in Groups Chad a more positive perception of the impact of reflection than the participants in Group B. 78

PAGE 86

A review of the qualitative data also indicates that participants in Group C Group Reflection, found the structured reflection process useful in many ways. The following are comments from participants in Group C in response to the question, "in your opinion, what value was added to your group by the structured reflection experience?" Of great value. We discussed each point and learned a lot from each other We were able to evaluate methods for improvement and implement them. We became more comfortable with each other. It allowed group members to voice opinions on group effectiveness, which does not always happen. It allowed for more detailed discussion of impact. In answer to the same question, responses from participants in Group B were quite different. The responses reflected a frustration with not being able to share reflections with other group members. The following are Group B responses to the question, "in your opinion, what value was added to your group by the structured reflection experience?" It gave me a chance to write my own ideas and thoughts. I don't think any value was added because our structured reflection process was kept to ourselves. 79

PAGE 87

I Some, but only personally. More value would have been added if we would have discussed results. Able to reflect on your participation and importance to the group and able to change actions in the upcoming decision. In summary, the quantitative data suggests borderline significance between the perception of Structured Individual Reflection and Structured Group Reflection. The qualitative data also reflects a possible perceived benefit of Structured Group Reflection on group performance in comparison to Structured Individual Reflection. Based on this analysis, the researcher believes there is sufficient evidence to warrant further studies on the perceived value of structured reflection on group performance. 80

PAGE 88

CHAPTERS THE CONCLUSION This research project was a study to determine what impact structured reflection had on a group's ability to complete a given exercise. The research questions addressed in this study include: Will structured reflection, as a group, impact the group's ability to complete the exercise more efficiently and effectively relative to groups without structured reflection? Will structured reflection, as a group, impact the group's ability to complete the exercise more efficiently and effectively relative to groups using individual, structured reflection? Will structured reflection, as individuals, impact the group's ability to complete the exercise more efficiently and effectively relative to groups without structured reflection? To conduct this study, groups of people were asked to participate in a business simulation that consisted of three tasks. The control groups were allowed no time for structured reflection between tasks. One set of test groups was given time for structured, individual reflection between tasks, and a second set of test groups was given time for structured, group reflection 81

PAGE 89

between tasks. Performance was measured on two dimensions, effectiveness in completing the tasks and efficiency in completing the tasks. The results of this study, based on the Kruskai-Wallis Test, indicate there was no relationship between structured reflection (individually nor as a group) and the group's ability to complete the given tasks more efficiently or effectively. In addition to the efficiency and effectiveness measures, a Follow-up Questionnaire was completed by individuals in Groups 8 Individual Reflection and Groups C Group Reflection to determine how reflection was perceived in relation to group performance. A Two-Way ANOVA was performed. Borderline significance was found indicating that individuals in Groups C Group Reflection perceived reflection to have a greater impact on group performance than those in Groups 8 Individual Reflection. In conducting the literature search on learning and reflection, the researcher found sufficient theoretical support for the proposed research questions. The body of literature indicated this study should have yielded higher scores on efficiency and effectiveness by those groups who participated in the structured reflection process than those groups who did not participate in the structured reflection process. Since the study did not indicate these results, the researcher must reconsider the validity of the 82

PAGE 90

theories and the method in which structured reflection was operationalized for this study. Based on the results of this study, the researcher raises several questions and issues in regard to the theories of learning and reflection. Those issues include: Are the espoused theories of organizational learning valid? Is the individual learning model indicative and applicable to team learning? Is written questions an effective antecedent for structured reflection? How does culture affect our ability to reflect? What impact does this study have on pedagogy? The first issue -are the espoused theories of organizational learning valid? As the researcher conducted the literature search for this study, the phrases, "learning organizations, collective intelligence of a group and team learning" were often used to indicate that group knowledge and performance is critical to organizational success. It is espoused by organizational learning theories that collective intelligence is a competitive advantage and that organizational learning is a strategy for organizational success in the future. The researcher is concerned about the lack of methods developed for 83

PAGE 91

capturing and measuring the learning that is espoused by these theories. There appears to be little concrete evidence supporting the relationship between organizational learning and organizational success. Is "organizational learning" a phenomena or just a catchy phrase to promote teamwork? The researcher is concerned that the organizational learning concept, which is popular in current literature, may take organizations on tangents that provide no real value to individuals or the bottom-line results of an organization. Concrete methods and systems need to be developed and researched to support the espoused theories of organizational learning. Without further concrete evidence that organizational learning is a viable method for achieving success, this theory should be carefully scrutinized to avoid spending time, money and effort on methods that may not prove fruitful. The second issue raised by this study --is the individual learning model indicative and adaptable to team learning? Reflection, as indicated by individual learning models, is a critical step in the learning process. Spear translates the individual learning model into a model for team learning, which includes public reflection (Senge, 1990, 61). Intuitively it may make sense that the individual learning model can be adapted for a team, since teams are a collection of individual. Based on the study results, the researcher questions, however, whether learning as a group can be adequately 84

PAGE 92

compared to learning as an individual. This comparison may be difficult to accomplish as there is little research on methods for quantifying team learning. Is team learning a sum of individual learning? Is it a factor of the number of team members? These are questions that were of concern to the researcher, therefore, information was gathered in regard to cooperative learning groups. Research indicates that people do learn in cooperative-type groups. The processes used in cooperative learning groups appears to be well defined and succinct, unlike those processes for organizational and team learning. The measures for cooperative learning groups are, however, based on individual scores of learning, not on group scores of learning. Identifying methods for measuring team learning may be a worthwhile issue to address in order to better understand team learning and to ope rationalize the concept. The third issue--is written questions an effective antecedent for structured reflection? The theories surrounding learning indicate that reflection is a critical component of the learning process (Kolb, 21; Pfeiffer, 6). The theories do not, however, provide conditions for operationalizing the reflection process. As a result, the researcher looked to theories regarding thinking (Dewey), reflective teaching (Cruickshank), and reflective questioning (Lee) to understand what may cause and/or encourage people to engage in the act of reflection. Though several different methods were 85

PAGE 93

proposed in these theories, the researcher chose to use questioning as the means for engaging the participants in structured reflection. The questions were designed to probe the participants to discuss observations about factors that contributed to the completion of the task and factors that hindered the completion of the task. In addition, the questions were designed to encourage the participants to discuss opportunities and methods for making the group more efficient and effective in completing future tasks. The researcher is interested in how various other antecedents to reflection (e.g. videotaping, journaling, facilitated questioning) compare to written questions. Are some methods better antecedents to reflection for certain individuals? It is possible that structured questions are sufficient in helping some individuals or groups reflect but not others? Would preferences, learning styles and communication styles help identify the method most useful for reflection for certain individuals? It would be valuable to better understand if different antecedent are effective with certain individuals; if so, what makes them more effective. This information would impact the way we teach reflection and effect how reflection is incorporate into team processes. The fourth issues raised is -what impact does this study have on pedagogy? The researcher questions how the environment and culture in which we are raised affects the ability and/or the desire for individuals and 86

PAGE 94

groups to reflect. As mentioned earlier in The Problem, the researcher believes that our culture does not encouraged us to spend time reflecting. John Dewey said, ... we do have to learn how to think well, especially how to acquire the general habit of reflection" (35). A habit, according to Webster's Dictionary is, "a tendency toward an action or condition, which by repetition has become involuntary" (318). To create habits, efforts must go into practicing and repetition in order to make an action so comfortable that little thought is required to perform that action. Can reflection be taught and practiced in a repetitive manner so that it does become habit? Can the habit of reflection be taught the same as creating the habit of finding the correct keys on a piano? Additional research would be valuable to better understand how the habit of reflection is created so that it can be taught and by way that it creates value to individuals and organizations. According to the results of this study, reflection does not enhance the groups' efficiency or effectiveness, therefore, the researcher questions structured reflection's value to the group process. Structured reflection, in the form of answering questions, appeared to cause frustration and boredom among the participants. This raises the issue of "good" reflection versus "bad" reflection. A group may reflect, but it does not mean that they are channeling their reflection in a constructive direction for the benefit of the team. 87

PAGE 95

Reflection, without guidance, may cause "bad" reflection (reflection on negative aspects about the group, the company, etc.) The possible results of this "bad" reflection may be decreased efficiency and effectiveness because the reflections are channeled towards things outside of the control of those reflecting. In addition to posing challenges and questions to the theory surrounding reflection, the researcher believes a "reflection" on this study is worthwhile to identify possible flaws in the study design. The researcher questions two related items about the study design: Operational definition of reflection Amount of time allocated for reflection The first design issue was the method in which reflection was operationalized for this study. In reviewing the answers participants wrote to the reflection questions, the researcher recognized that the questions did not take the participants to the level of reflection that was desired by the researcher. The reflections appeared to be superficial, indicated by answers written by participants in regard to the exercise itself. Comments referred to their likes and dislikes about the exercise rather than reflections on their individual and/or group performance and behavior. Comments about the lack 88

PAGE 96

of information in the scenario and being timed for the exercise were common statements. These comments are reflections, however, they appear to be directed towards items the group cannot control. The researcher had hoped the structured reflection questions would encourage the participants to search within themselves to reflect on their behavior, attitudes and assumptions in order to positively impact performance. As mentioned earlier, our culture does not tend encourage reflection and most people have not been taught how to make reflection a habit. The researcher is interested if structured reflection would have a greater impact on performance if it was facilitated. In other words, would participants achieve a different level of reflection if someone were asking the questions, paraphrasing responses and asking follow-up questions? This method would potentially allow more control over the process so that reflection is channeled in a productive direction to positively impact performance. The second design issues is the amount of time established for reflection. The researcher discovered, during the pilot session, that a certain amount of time had to be established for reflection to ensure the participants did not rush through or skip the process entirely. The researcher believes that fifteen minutes was too long of time for reflection for many groups and their performance was negatively impacted by their boredom and fatigue. This 89

PAGE 97

boredom and fatigue may have caused the participants to dwell on the negative aspects of the exercise rather than reflect on their own performance. This again relates to the issues of "good" reflection and "bad" reflection. Though bored, the participants may still have been engaged in reflection, but it may not have been channeled appropriately to positively impact the group's performance. Though the results of this study did not suggest that Structured Reflection had a significant impact on group performance, the researcher would like to continue to explore this concept. Based on the borderline significance of the Follow-up Questionnaire on the perceived value of reflection, the researcher believes additional research is warranted to determine if and when structured reflection can positively impact performance and in what ways performance can be impacted. There are multiple questions and perspectives in regard to reflection that need to be understood before this process can be effectively incorporated into the team concept. Some of the questions to be explored are: What antecedents engage participants in reflection? If using structured questions as an antecedent for reflection, are there optimal questions to ask? How does facilitated, structured reflection compare to written questions? 90

PAGE 98

Is there an "optimal" amount of time for reflection? How can the habit of reflection be created and incorporated into our daily and weekly team processes? How does structured reflection compare with unstructured reflection? The researcher hopes that the relation between reflection and performance will continue to be explored. Once we understand the proper method of reflection and understand how to teach people to create the habit of reflection, the researcher is confident that individuals and organizations can gain value from this process. It is hoped that further research on reflection will enable us to make inroads to creating learning organizations to enable individuals and teams to achieve greater levels of performance. 91

PAGE 99

APPENDIX A PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM 92

PAGE 100

Consent Form I agree to participate in the study conducted by Shelie Duckworth (Communications Department, University of Colorado at Denver). I understand that I am free to withdraw my consent and discontinue participation at any time without prejudice or penalty of any kind. I understand that I may ask questions regarding the research, both during and after the research is completed. Questions concerning rights as a subject may be direct to: The Department of Communications CU-Denver Campus Box 123 P. 0. Box 173364 Denver, CO 802127-3364 Telephone: 556-2770 I understand that as a participant in this study, I will be asked to join four individuals to complete a group exercise that requires decision making and generation of ideas. I understand that I may be asked to share my observations upon completion of the tasks within the exercise. I understand that the researcher will treat all gathered data with professional standards of confidentiality. The names of individuals participating in the study will not be revealed in the completed thesis. All results will be attributed to a number assigned to each group. Upon completion of the study, Shelie Duckworth will provide the results of the study to each individual who provides an address below. Signed ____________ Date ____ Print Name: ----------If you want a copy of the results of this study sent to you, please include your mailing address: 93

PAGE 101

APPENDIX B-1 DIRECTIONS FOR EXERCISE CONTROL GROUPS 94

PAGE 102

Instructions for Group Participants: You have three minutes to read these instructions and the synopsis on the attached page. You may refer back to these documents during the course of the exercise if you need to. Each person in your group has received the same instructions. All of the instructions you need for completing this exercise are included in the nine envelopes on your table. The decisions your group makes during this exercise will dictate which envelops your group will open as you proceed. Only six envelopes will be opened during the course of this exercise. Each envelope has five copies of the same document so each participant will be working with the same information and instructions. Do not open any of the envelopes until the instructions tell you to do so. This group exercise will be measured in two ways: 1. Efficiency -the amount of time that it takes the group to complete the entire exercise; 2. Effectiveness-based on the number of criteria your group addresses. (You will find the criteria in each envelope.) You will need to choose someone from your group to be the scribe (you may rotate this role.) The role of the scribe is to write down the group's ideas and decisions, on the note paper provided, per the directions in each envelope. Please begin reading the AGC Plant synopsis (next page). 95

PAGE 103

AGC Plant Synopsis The AGC Plant, whose President Joe Duncan, is a subsidiary of Colorado Chemical and Equipment Corporation. Its operations have been quite successful. Beginning with a capital investment of slightly less than $750,000 in 1960, its capital investment today is in excess of $250,000,000. The AGC Plant manufactures several types of specialty, high-pressure gaskets. The plant employs 50 engineers, 30 technicians and 500 union production workers, working two, forty hour shifts per week. The number of people employed is up five percent from last year as the demand for these specialty gaskets is growing due to the increase in sales of equipment by Colorado Chemical and Equipment Corporation. The AGC Plant is located in a Colorado town of about 37,000 people. It is one of the largest, single employers in this town and is very aware of its civic responsibility. The culture of AGC Plant is to strive to meet the demands of the customer. Employees recognize they must produce a high quality product in order to maintain their long-standing reputation. Though this business is growing, there is competition that can easily take away their market niche if they slack off on the quality of their product. The management team consists of six people and is led by Joe Duncan. You are one of the management team members. Traditionally, the management team meets every Monday morning for approximately two hours to review the financial reports, discuss personnel issues and make decisions on items brought forth that are important to the success of AGC Plant. The management team uses two types of decision making processes in order to make decisions that affect the plant: 1: Consensus, where all six members agree to support the decision; 2. Consultative, where Joe Duncan gets the managers' input and makes the final decision. During Joe Duncan's absence, the management team relies on consensus decision making. Joe has been called away from the plant on a family emergency on Friday morning. He expects to be back in three weeks. In Joe's absence, the five management team members are expected to keep operations running smoothly at the plant. Joe's only instructions were to "carry on." Three items were left in Joe's In-Basket on Friday that are to be addressed at this Management Meeting. Those three items are: 1. Presentation -Jr. Achievement Awards 2. Personnel Issue --Mary Anderson 3. Union Letter from Union President It is Monday morning and you are in the management meeting. You and the four other managers must address these issues. The timer will advise you when your three minutes are up. At that time, your group may open Envelope 1 and begin the exercise. 96

PAGE 104

Envelope #1 Mr. Joe Duncan Plant President AGC Plant Dear Joe, This is a reminder that we are counting on you and the rest of AGC managers to provide us with the two-hour, evening program for our Jr. Achievement awards dinner two weeks from today. Per our previous discussion, you mentioned that you and the other managers are willing to share in the program by discussing the changing role of managers. We are interested in hearing what it is like to be a manager in the current environment versus 20 years ago. As you know, the audience will be high-achieving students, ages 18 22 who are or will be enrolled in the business program at our local 4-year college. I will stop by on Tuesday to pick up the outline of your talk and list of presenters so we can prepare the programs and press releases. We are all looking forward to seeing you. Best regards, Paul Johnson Chairman Jr. Achievement Committee 97

PAGE 105

Envelope #1 Instructions-Criteria for Presentation --Jr. Achievement Awards Your group is to make a decision as to whether the management team will continue with the presentation in Joe Duncan's absence. Remember, this team makes consensus decisions during Joe Duncan's absence, therefore, each person in your group must support the decision. Once the group has made a decision, the scribe should circle the decision of the group on the green page and each group member should sign the page. Continue following directions given on the green page. 98

PAGE 106

Please circle the group's decision: Our group has decided we WILL/WILL NOT continue with the presentation in Joe Duncan's absence. Signed (by each group member): If the decision is the group WILL do the presentation, please open Envelope #2. If the decision is the group WILL NOT do the presentation, please open Envelope #3. 99

PAGE 107

Envelope #2 Your group has made a decision that you WILL continue with presentation in Joe Duncan's absence. The group is to prepare an outline of the presentation on the note paper that is provided for you. The outline should include the following: List 3 characteristics or qualities of a traditional manager approximately 20 years ago that can be discussed in the presentation. List 3 characteristics or qualities of a manager of the 1990s that can be discussed in the presentation. Write 2 questions you may expect to be asked from the audience. Assign managers from your group to present the parts of the presentation. Each person should write his/her first and last name next to the chosen section of the outline: Introduction Characteristics of a manager 20 years ago Characteristics of the "new manager" Challenges of a "new manager" Questions/answers When your group has completed .this outline, please advise the timekeeper. When the timekeeper instructs you to do so, please open Envelope #4 and continue per the instructions. 100

PAGE 108

Envelope#3 Your group has made a decision that you WILL NOT continue with presentation in Joe Duncan's absence. The group is to prepare an outline for a letter to Paul Johnson, Chairman, Jr. Achievement Committee on the note paper that is provided for you. The outline for the letter should include the following: List 3 reasons for not doing the presentation. List 3 possible topics that you suggest they consider for alternate presentations. List 2 possible ways the management group can make up for this inconvenience to the Jr. Achievement Committee. Each member should sign his/her first and last name at the bottom of the outline in alphabetical order by last name. When your group has completed this outline, please advise the timekeeper. When the timekeeper instructs you to do so, please open Envelope #4 and continue per the instructions. 101

PAGE 109

Envelope #4 Office Memorandum To: Joe Duncan From: Jill Reynolds, Employee Relations Subject: Mary Anderson This memo is to inform you that Mary Anderson has been offered a position with JK Corporation. As you may recall, Mary was hired by AGC six months ago. She had 5 years engineering experience prior to coming to AGC and filled a need we had between new engineers and experienced engineers (10+ years). Her performance has been outstanding according to her supervisor and peers. JK Corporation has offered Mary a starting salary that is 10,000 dollars above her current salary at AGC Corporation. When we hired her, we offered the best we could, far above any other engineers of her background and experience. I should also tell you that she is working on the design of our most advanced gasket. Losing Mary may put us behind several months in meeting our deadlines to Colorado Chemical and Equipment Corporation. Please advise me no later than Monday afternoon as to whether AGC will extend her another offer or not. Thank you. 102

PAGE 110

Envelope #4 Instructions-Criteria for Personnel Issue -Mary Anderson Your group is to make a consensus decision as to whether or not you will make a counter-offer to Mary with a salary increase of $12,000. Once you have made a decision as a group, please circle the decision you have made on the green page and each group member must sign the page. Continue following directions given on the green page. 103

PAGE 111

Please circle the group's decision: Our group has decided we WILL/WILL NOT make a counter-offer to Mary of $12,000. Signed (by each member of the group): If the decision is the group WILL make a counter-offer to Mary, please open Envelope #5. If the decision is the group WILL NOT make a counter-offer to Mary, please open Envelope #6. 104

PAGE 112

Envelope #5 Your group has made a decision that you WILL make a counter offer of $12,000 to Mary. Please draft an outline of a response to Jill Reynolds that includes the following: List 2 reasons to support your counter-offer. Recommend one of the following employees to replace Mary on this important gasket design project IF she decides to NOT take your counter offer: 1. Frank: Employee of AGC. Three years total experience with a Masters degree in engineering. Rated excellent by Supervisor and peers. Energetic and talented, however, he lacks design experience traditionally required by this type of project. Will require 3 weeks of design school and it is estimated it will take him about 6 months to be comfortable in this new role. 2. Terry: Employee of AGC with 25 years total experience; Bachelors degree. Rated excellent by Supervisor, rated only fair by peers. Has experience necessary for position, however, he has been informally talking about retiring in 6 months. Write 3 ideas to describe how you will address the following issue that is likely to arise from a male engineer with 15 years experience at AGC: "I have 10 more years total experience than Mary. I was given only a 3% salary increase last year. The quality of my work is superior according to my supervisor. You are giving special treatment to a female. Why should I work long hours for this company when there is no reward for me?" When your group has completed this outline, please advise the timekeeper. When the timekeeper instructs you to do so, please open Envelope #7 and continue per the instructions. 105

PAGE 113

Envelope #6 Your group has made a decision that you WILL NOT make a counter offer of a $12,000 increase to Mary. Please draft an outline of a response to Jill Reynolds that includes the following: List 2 reasons for not making the counter-offer to Mary. Recommend one of the following employees to replace Mary on this important gasket design project: 1. Frank: Employee of AGC. Three years total experience with a Masters degree in engineering. Rated excellent by Supervisor and peers. Energetic and talented, however, he lacks design experience traditionally required by this type of project. Will require 3 weeks of design school and it is estimated it will take him about 6 months to be comfortable in this new role. 2. Terry: Employee of AGC with 25 years total experience; Bachelors degree. Rated excellent by Supervisor, rated only fair by peers. Has experience necessary for position, however, he has been informally talking about retiring in 6 months. List 3 reasons supporting your recommendation of Frank or Terry as Mary's replacement. When your group has completed this outline, please advise the timekeeper. When the timekeeper instructs you to do so, please open Envelope #7 and continue per the instructions. 106

PAGE 114

Envelope #7 Joe Duncan Re: Union Elections On several recent occasions, I have noticed that you and your staff of managers have employed your company newspaper as a vehicle for undermining the present union administration. In addition, a series of supervisory bulletins have been circulated that were designed to cause supervisory personnel to influence the thinking of union members in the upcoming union election in six weeks. I am also well aware of your "support" for Jessie Sims and others, who have been more than sympathetic towards company management. As you know, such behaviors as I have described are in direct violation of Section 101, Subsection 9 (a) of the Labor-Management Relations Act, as well as being a violation of Article 21 of our contract with your company. I am sure that you are also aware of the negative impact the filing of a charge of unfair management practices could have on future elections and negotiations. I trust such action will not become necessary and that you will take steps to prevent any further discrimination against this administration. Sincerely, R. P. Jones, President A. F. F. W., Local 801 107

PAGE 115

Envelope #7 Instructions -Criteria for Union Letter Make a consensus decision as to whether you want to address this issue in Joe Duncan's absence or wait for his return. Once you have made a decision as a group, please circle the decision you have made on the green page and each group member must sign the page. Continue following directions given on the green page. 108

PAGE 116

Please circle the group's decision: Our group has decided we WILL/WILL NOT address this Union issue in Joe Duncan's absence. Signed (by each group member): If the decision is the group WILL address this Union issue during John Duncan's absence, please open Envelope #8. If the decision is group the WILL NOT address this Union issue during John Duncan's absence, please open Envelope #9. 109

PAGE 117

Envelope #8 Your group had made a decision that you WILL address this issue during John Duncan's absence. Please do the following: List 2 ways to prevent further perceptions of discrimination against the union administration. List 3 points to be covered in a letter to the Editor of the company newsletter describing your regret that previous articles were misconstrued as undermining the present union administration. List 3 points to be addressed in a letter to R. P. Jones regretting the misunderstanding. Please advise the timekeeper when you have completed this exercise. Thank you for your participation. IIO

PAGE 118

Envelope#9 Your group has decide that you WILL NOT address this issue in Joe Duncan's absence. Please do the following: List 2 recommendations to prevent further perceptions of discrimination against the union administration. List 3 points to be addressed in a letter to the Editor of the company newsletter (to be signed by Joe Duncan) describing your regret that previous articles were misconstrued as undermining the present union administration List 3 points to be addressed in a letter (to be signed by Joe Duncan) to R. P. Jones regretting the misunderstanding. Please advise the timekeeper when you have completed this exercise. Thank you for your participation. 111

PAGE 119

Groups A Control Group Instructions for Timers 1. Hand out "Instructions for Group Participants" and "AGC Plant Synopsis" (stapled together) to each group member. 2. Time 3 minutes for them to read above pages. 3. After 3 minutes, tell the group to open Envelope #1. Begin timing immediately. 4. When group notifies you they have completed the task, stop the time. Write down elapsed time on attached sheet by Task 1. (Clear watch.) 5. Tell the group to open Envelope #4. Begin timing immediately. 6. When group notifies you they have. completed the task, stop the time. Write down elapsed time on attached sheet by Task 2. (Clear watch.) 7. Tell group to open Envelope #7. Begin timing immediately. 8. When group notifies you they have completed the task, stop the time. Write down elapsed time on attached sheet by Task 3. 9. Collect "green" sheets (3). 10. Dismiss the group. 112

PAGE 120

APPENDIX B-2 DIRECTIONS FOR EXERCISEINDIVIDUAL REFLECTION 113

PAGE 121

Instructions for Group Participants: You have three minutes to read these instructions and the synopsis on the attached page. You may refer back to these documents during the course of the exercise if you need to. Each person in your group has received the same instructions. All of the instructions you need for completing this exercise are included in the nine envelopes on your table. The decisions your group makes during this exercise will dictate which envelops your group will open as you proceed. Only six envelopes will be opened d4ririg the course of this exercise. Each envelope has five copies of the same document so each participant will be working with the same information and instructions. Do not open any of the envelopes until the instructions tell you to do so. This group exercise will be measured in two ways: 1. Efficiency -the amount of time that it takes the group to complete the entire exercise; 2. Effectiveness -based on the number of criteria your group addresses. (You will find the criteria in each envelope.) You will need to choose someone from your group to be the scribe (you may rotate this role.) The role of the scribe is to write down the group's ideas and decisions as indicated in each envelope. Please begin reading the AGC Plant synopsis (next page). 114

PAGE 122

AGC Plant Synopsis The AGC Plant, whose President Joe Duncan, is a subsidiary of Colorado Chemical and Equipment Corporation. Its operations have been quite successful. Beginning with a capital investment of slightly less than $750,000 in 1960, its capital investment today is in excess of $250,000,000. The AGC Plant manufactures several types of specialty, high-pressure gaskets. The plant employs 50 engineers, 30 technicians and 500 union production workers, working two, forty hour shifts per week. The number of people employed is up five percent from last year as the demand for these specialty gaskets is growing due to the increase in sales of equipment by Colorado Chemical and Equipment Corporation. The AGC Plant is located in a Colorado town of about 37,000 people. It is one of the largest, single employers in this town and is very aware of its civic responsibility. The culture of AGC Plant is to strive to meet the demands of the customer. Employees recognize they must produce a high quality product in order to maintain their long-standing reputation. Though this business is growing, there is competition that can easily take away their market niche if they slack off on the quality of their product. The management team consists of six people and is led by Joe Duncan. You are one of the management team members. Traditionally, the management team meets every Monday morning for approximately two hours to review the financial reports, discuss personnel issues and make decisions on items brought forth that are important to the success of AGC Plant. The management team uses two types of decision making processes in order to make decisions that affect the plant: 1: Consensus, where all six members agree to support the decision; 2. Consultative, where Joe Duncan gets the managers' input and makes the final decision. During Joe Duncan's absence, the management team relies on consensus decision making. Joe has been called away from the plant on a family emergency on Friday morning. He expects to be back in three weeks. In Joe's absence, the five management team members are expected to keep operations running smoothly at the plant. Joe's only instructions were to "carry on." Three items were left in Joe's In-Basket on Friday that are to be addressed at this Management Meeting. Those three items are: 1. Presentation --Jr. Achievement Awards 2. Personnel Issue --Mary Anderson 3. Union -Letter from Union President It is Monday morning and you are in the management meeting. You and the four other managers must address these issues. The timer will advise you when your three minutes are up. At that time, your group may open Envelope 1 and begin the exercise. 115

PAGE 123

Envelope #1 Mr. Joe Duncan Plant President AGC Plant Dear Joe, This is a reminder that we are counting on you and the rest of AGC managers. to provide us with the two-hour, evening program for our Jr. Achievement awards dinner two weeks from today. Per our previous discussion, you mentioned that you and the other managers are willing to share in the program by discussing the changing role of managers. We are interested in hearing what it is like to be a manager in the current environment versus 20 years ago. As you know, the audience will be high-achieving students, ages 18 22 who are or will be enrolled in the business program at our local 4-year college. I will stop by on Tuesday to pick up the outline of your talk and list of presenters so we can prepare the programs and press releases. We are all looking forward to seeing you. Best regards, Paul Johnson Chairman Jr. Achievement Committee 116

PAGE 124

Envelope #1 Instructions-Criteria for Presentation -Jr. Achievement Awards Your group is to make a decision as to whether the management team will continue with the presentation in Joe Duncan's absence. Remember, this team makes consensus decisions during Joe Duncan's absence, therefore, each person in your group must support the decision. Once the group has made a decision, the scribe should circle the decision of the group on the green page and each group member should sign the page. Continue following directions given on the green page. 117

PAGE 125

Please circle the group's decision: Our group has decided we WILL/WILL NOT continue with the presentation in Joe Duncan's absence. Signed (by each group member): If the decision is the group WILL do the presentation, please open Envelope #2. If the decision is the group WILL NOT do the presentation, please open Envelope #3. 118

PAGE 126

Envelope #2 Your group has made a decision that you WILL continue with presentation in Joe Duncan's absence. The group is to prepare an outline of the presentation on the note paper that is provided for you. The outline should include the following: List 3 characteristics or qualities of a traditional manager approximately 20 years ago that can be discussed in the presentation. List 3 characteristics or qualities of a manager of the 1990s that can be discussed in the presentation. Write 2 questions you may expect to be asked from the audience. Assign managers from your group to present the parts of the presentation. Each person should write his/her first and last name next to the chosen section of the outline: Introduction Characteristics of a manager approximately 20 years ago Characteristics of the "new manager'' Challenges of a "new manager'' Questions/answers When your group has completed this outline, please advise the timer. The timer will stop the watch and hand each person a yellow sheet with five questions. Each person is to think about the questions and WRITE his/her ideas and thoughts in answer to each question. Write on the yellow sheet and use the back, if necessary. Please DO NOT discuss your answers with other group members. You will have 15 minutes to write your answers to the questions on the yellow page. If you complete the yellow sheet prior to 15 minutes being up, please remain in your chair and remain silent so others can complete the questions. (The time it take for you to complete the yellow page will be subtracted from the total amount of time for this exercise.) 119

PAGE 127

You will have 15 minutes to write your ideas and comments in answer to the following questions. The timer will advise you when your 15 minutes are up. 1. Describe your role in the exercise you have just completed (i.e. what were your contributions?) 2. What factors do you believe contributed most to completing the task? 3. What do you believe got in the way of achieving even better results? 4. Describe what you learned about the group during the exercise you just completed? 5. Describe how the group can be more effective in future exercises? When 15 minutes are finished, your timer will advise you and you may continue by opening Envelope #4. 120

PAGE 128

Envelope#3 Your group has made a decision that you WILL NOT continue with presentation in Joe Duncan's absence. The group is to prepare an outline for a letter to Paul Johnson, Chairman, Jr. Achievement Committee on the note paper that is provided for you. The outline for the letter should include the following: List 3 reasons for not doing the presentation. List 3 possible topics that you suggest they consider for alternate presentations. List 2 possible ways the management group can make up this inconvenience to the Jr. Achievement Committee. Each member should sign his/her first and last name at the bottom of the outline in alphabetical order by last name. When your group has completed this outline, please advise the timer. The timer will stop the watch and hand each person a yellow sheet with five questions. Each person is to think about the questions and WRITE his/her ideas and thoughts in answer to each question. Write on the yellow sheet and use the back, if necessary. Please DO NOT discuss your answers with other group members. You will have 15 minutes to write your answers to the questions on the yellow page. If you complete the yellow sheet prior to 15 minutes being up, please remain in your chair and remain silent so others can complete the questions. (The time it take for you to complete the yellow page will be subtracted from the total amount of time for this exercise.) 121

PAGE 129

Envelope#4 Office Memorandum To: Joe Duncan From: Jill Reynolds, Employee Relations Subject: Mary Anderson This memo is to inform you that Mary Anderson has been offered a position with JK Corporation. As you may recall, Mary was hired by AGC six months ago. She had 5 years engineering experience prior to coming to AGC and filled a need we had between new engineers and experienced engineers (1 0+ years). Her performance has been outstanding according to her supervisor and peers. JK Corporation has offered Mary a starting salary that is 10,000 dollars above her current salary at AGC Corporation. When we hired her, we offered the best we could, far above any other engineers of her background and experience. I should also tell you that she is working on the design of our most advanced gasket. Losing Mary may put us behind several months in meeting our deadlines to Colorado Chemical and Equipment Corporation. Please advise me no later than Monday afternoon as to whether AGC will extend her another offer or not. Thank you. 122

PAGE 130

Envelope #4 Instructions -Criteria for Personnel Issue -Mary Anderson Your group is to make a consensus decision as to whether or not you will make a counter-offer to Mary with a salary increase of $12,000. Once you have made a decision as a group, please circle the decision you have made on the green page and each group member must sign the page. Continue following directions given on the green page. 123

PAGE 131

Please circle the group's decision: Our group has decided we WILL/WILL NOT make a counter-offer to Mary of $12,000. Signed (by each group member): If the decision is the group WILL make a counter-offer to Mary, please open Envelope #5. If the decision is the group WILL NOT make a counter-offer to Mary, please open Envelope #6. 124

PAGE 132

Envelope #5 Your group has made a decision that you WILL make a counter offer of $12,000 to Mary. Please draft an outline of a response to Jill Reynolds that includes the following: List 2 reasons to support your counter-offer. Recommend one of the following employees to replace Mary on this important gasket design project IF she does NOT accept the counter offer: 1. Frank: Employee of AGC. Three years total experience with a Masters degree in engineering. Rated excellent by Supervisor and peers. Energetic and talented, however, he lacks design experience traditionally required by this type of project. Will require 3 weeks of design school and it is estimated it will take him about 6 months to be comfortable in this new role. 2. Terry: Employee of AGC with 25 years total experience; Bachelors degree. Rated excellent by Supervisor, rated only fair by peers. Has experience necessary for position, however, he has been informally talking about retiring in 6 months Write 3 ideas describing how you will address the following issue that is likely to arise from a male engineer with 15 years experience at AGC: "I have 10 more years total experience than Mary. I was given only a 3% salary increase last year. The quality of my work is superior according to my supervisor. You are giving special treatment to a female. Why should I work long hours for this company when there is no reward for me?" When your group has completed this outline, please advise the timer. The timer will stop the watch and hand each person a yellow sheet with five questions. Each person is to think about the questions and WRITE his/her ideas and thoughts in answer to each question. Write on the yellow sheet and use the back, if necessary. Please DO NOT discuss your answers with other group members. You will have 15 minutes to write your answers to the questions on the yellow page. If you complete the yellow sheet prior to 15 minutes being up, please remain in your chair and remain silent so others can complete the questions. (The time it take for you to complete the yellow page will be subtracted from the total amount of time for this exercise.) 125

PAGE 133

You will have 15 minutes to write your ideas and comments in answer to the following questions. The timer will advise you when your 15 minutes are up. 1. Describe and discuss your role in the exercise you have just completed (i.e. what were your contributions?) 2. What factors do you believe contributed most to completing the task? 3. What do you believe got in the way of achieving even better results? 4. Describe and discuss what you learned about the group during the exercise you just completed? 5. Describe and discuss how the group can be more effective in future exercises? When 15 minutes are finished, your timer will advise you and you may continue by opening Envelope #7. 126

PAGE 134

Envelope #6 Your group has made a decision that you WILL NOT make a counter offer of a $12,000 increase to Mary. Please draft an outline of a response to Jill Reynolds that includes the following: List 2 reasons for not making the counter -offer to Mary. Recommend one of the following employees to replace Mary on this important gasket design project: 1. Frank: Employee of AGC. Three years total experience with a Masters degree in engineering. Rated excellent by Supervisor and peers. Energetic and talented, however, he Jacks design experience traditionally required by this type of project. Will require 3 weeks of design school and it is estimated it will take him about 6 months to be comfortable in this new role. 2. Terry: Employee of AGC with 25 years total experience; Bachelors degree. Rated excellent by Supervisor, rated only fair by peers. Has experience necessary for position, however, he has been informally talking about retiring in 6 months. List 3 reasons supporting your recommendation of Frank or Terry as Mary's replacement. When your group has completed this outline, please advise the timer. The timer will stop the watch and hand each person a yellow sheet with five questions. Each person is to think about the questions and WRITE his/her ideas and thoughts in answer to each question. Write on the yellow sheet and use the back, if necessary. Please DO NOT discuss your answers with other group members. You will have 15 minutes to write your answers to the questions on the yellow page. If you complete the yellow sheet prior to 15 minutes being up, please remain in your chair and remain silent so others can complete the questions. (The time it take for you to complete the yellow page will be subtracted from the total amount of time for this exercise.) 127

PAGE 135

Envelope #7 Joe Duncan Re: Union Elections On several recent occasions, I have noticed that you and your staff of managers have employed your company newspaper as a vehicle for undermining the present union administration. In addition, a series of supervisory bulletins have been circulated that were designed to cause supervisory personnel to influence the thinking of union members in the upcoming union election in six weeks. I am also well aware of your "support" for Jessie Sims and others, who have been more than sympathetic towards company management. As you know, such behaviors as I have described are in direct violation of Section 101, Subsection 9 (a) of the Labor-Management Relations Act, as well as being a violation of Article 21 of our contract with your company. I am sure that you are also aware of the negative impact the filing of a charge of unfair management practices could have on future elections and negotiations. I trust such action will not become necessary and that you will take steps to prevent any further discrimination against this administration. Sincerely, R. P. Jones, President A. F. F. W., Local 801 128

PAGE 136

Envelope #7 Instructions-Criteria for Union Letter Make a consensus decision as to whether you want to address this issue in Joe Duncan's absence or wait for his return. Once you have made a decision as a group, please circle the decision you have made on the green page and each group member must sign the page. Continue following directions given on the green page. 129

PAGE 137

Please circle the group's decision: Our group has decided we WILL/WILL NOT address this Union issue in Joe Duncan's absence. Signed (by each group member): If the decision is the group WILL address this Union issue during John Duncan's absence, please open Envelope #8. If the decision is group the WILL NOT address this Union issue during John Duncan's absence, please open Envelope #9. 130

PAGE 138

Envelope #8 Your group had made a decision that you WILL address this issue during John Duncan's absence. Please do the following: List 2 ways to prevent further perceptions of discrimination against the union administration. List 3 points to be covered in a letter to the Editor of the company newsletter describing your regret that previous articles were misconstrued as undermining the present union administration. List 3 points to be addressed in a letter toR. P. Jones regretting the misunderstanding. Please advise the timekeeper when you have completed this exercise. Thank you for your participation. 131

PAGE 139

Envelope #9 Your group has decide that you WILL NOT address this issue in Joe Duncan's absence. Please do the following: List 2 recommendations to prevent further perceptions of discrimination against the union administration. List 3 points to be addressed in a letter to the Editor of the company newsletter (to be signed by Joe Duncan) describing your regret that previous articles were misconstrued as undermining the present union administration List 3 points to be addressed in a letter (to be signed by Joe Duncan) to R. P. Jones regretting the misunderstanding. Please advise the timekeeper when you have completed this exercise. Thank you for your participation. 132

PAGE 140

Groups B -Individual Reflection Group Instructions for Timers 1. Hand out "Instructions for Group Participants" and "AGC Plant Synopsis" (stapled together) to each group member. 2. Time 3 minutes for them to read above pages. 3. After 3 minutes, tell the group to open Envelope #1. Begin timing immediately. 4. When group notifies you they have completed the task, stop the time. Write down elapsed time on attached sheet by Task 1. (Clear watch.) 5. Hand-out one "Yellow" page (packet 1) to each group member. Group members are to write answers to the questions individually. (Discourage discussion between group members during this time.) Begin timing. Tell the group when 15 minutes are up. At that time, collect the "yellow sheets from each individual. 6. Tell the group to open Envelope #4. Begin timing immediately. 7. When group notifies you they have completed the task, stop the time. Write down elapsed time on attached sheet by Task 2. (Clear watch.) 8. Hand-out one "Yellow" page (packet 2) to each group member. Group members are to write answers to the questions individually. (Discourage discussion between group members during this time.) Begin timing. Tell the group when 15 minutes are up. At that time, collect the "yellow sheets from each individual. 9. Tell group to open Envelope #7. Begin timing immediately. 10. When group notifies you they have completed the task, stop the time. Write down elapsed time on attached sheet by Task 3. 11. Collect "green" sheets (3). 1 0. Dismiss the group. 133

PAGE 141

APPENDIX 8-3 DIRECTIONS FOR EXERCISE GROUP REFLECTION 134

PAGE 142

Instructions for Group Participants: You have three minutes to read these instructions and the synopsis on the attached page. You may refer back to these documents during the course of the exercise if you need to. Each person in your group has received the same instructions. All of the instructions you need for completing this exercise are included in the nine envelopes on your table. The decisions your group makes during this exercise will dictate which envelops your group will open as you proceed. Only six envelopes will be opened during the course of this exercise. Each envelope has five copies of the same document so each participant will be working with the same information and instructions. Do not open any of the envelopes until the instructions tell you to do so. This group exercise will be measured in two ways: 1. Efficiency -the amount of time that it takes the group to complete the entire exercise; 2. Effectiveness-based on the number of criteria your group addresses. (You will find the criteria in each envelope.) You will need to choose someone from your group to be the scribe (you may rotate this role.) The role of the scribe is to write down the group's ideas and decisions as indicated in each envelope. Please begin reading the AGC Plant synopsis (next page). 135

PAGE 143

AGC Plant Synopsis The AGC Plant, whose President Joe Duncan, is a subsidiary of Colorado Chemical and Equipment Corporation. Its operations have been quite successful. Beginning with a capital investment of slightly less than $750,000 in 1960, its capital investment today is in excess of $250,000,000. The AGC Plant manufactures several types of specialty, high-pressure gaskets. The plant employs 50 engineers, 30 technicians and 500 union production workers, working two, fortyhour shifts per week. The number of people employed is up five percent from last year as the demand for these specialty gaskets is growing due to the increase in sales of equipment by Colorado Chemical and Equipment Corporation. The AGC Plant is located in a Colorado town of about 37,000 people. It is one of the largest, single employers in this town and is very aware of its civic responsibility. The culture of AGC Plant is to strive to meet the demands of the customer. Employees recognize they must produce a high quality product in order to maintain their long-standing reputation. Though this business is growing, there is competition that can easily take away their market niche if they slack off on the quality of their product. The management team consists of six people and is led by Joe Duncan. You are one of the management team members. Traditionally, the management team meets every Monday morning for approximately two hours to review the financial reports, discuss personnel issues and make decisions on items brought forth that are important to the success of AGC Plant. The management team uses two types of decision making processes in order to make decisions that affect the plant: 1: Consensus, where all six members agree to support the decision; 2. Consultative, where Joe Duncan gets the managers' input and makes the final decision. During Joe Duncan's absence, the management team relies on consensus decision making. Joe has been called away from the plant on a family emergency on Friday morning. He expects to be back in three weeks. In Joe's absence, the five management team members are expected to keep operations running smoothly at the plant. Joe's only instructions were to "carry on." Three items were left in Joe's In-Basket on Friday that are to be addressed at this Management Meeting. Those three items are: 1. Presentation -Jr. Achievement Awards 2. Personnel Issue -Mary Anderson 3. Union -Letter from Union President It is Monday morning and you are in the management meeting. You and the four other managers must address these issues. The timer will advise you when your three minutes are up. At that time, your group may open Envelope 1 and begin the exercise. 136

PAGE 144

Envelope #1 Mr. Joe Duncan Plant President AGC Plant Dear Joe, This is a reminder that we are counting on you and the rest of AGC managers to provide us with the two-hour, evening program for our Jr. Achievement awards dinner two weeks from today. Per our previous discussion, you mentioned that you and the other managers are willing to share in the program by discussing the changing role of managers. We are interested in hearing what it is like to be a manager in the current environment versus 20 years ago. As you know, the audience will be high-achieving students, ages 18 22 who are or will be enrolled in the business program at our local 4-year college. I will stop by on Tuesday to pick up the outline of your talk and list of presenters so we can prepare the programs and press releases. We are all looking forward to seeing you. Best regards, Paul Johnson Chairman Jr. Achievement Committee 137

PAGE 145

Envelope #1 Instructions -Criteria for Presentation -Jr. Achievement Awards Your group is to make a decision as to whether the management team will continue with the presentation in Joe Duncan's absence. Remember, this team makes consensus decisions during Joe Duncan's absence, therefore, each person in your group must support the decision. Once the group has made a decision, the scribe should circle the decision of the group on the green page and each group member should sign the page. Continue following directions given on the green page. 138

PAGE 146

Please circle the group's decision: Our group has decided we WILL/WILL NOT continue with the presentation in Joe Duncan's absence. Signed (by each group member): If the decision is the group WILL do the presentation, please open Envelope #2. If the decision is the group WILL NOT do the presentation, please open Envelope #3. 139

PAGE 147

Envelope #2 Your group has made a decision that you WILL continue with presentation in Joe Duncan's absence. The group is to prepare an outline of the presentation on the note paper that is provided for you. The outline should include the following: List 3 characteristics or qualities of a traditional manager approximately 20 years ago that can be discussed in the presentation. List 3 characteristics or qualities of a manager of the 1990s that can be discussed in the presentation. Write 2 questions you may expect to be asked from the audience. Assign managers from your group to present the parts of the presentation. Each person should write his/her first and last name next to the chosen section of the outline: Introduction Characteristics of a manager approximately 20 years ago Characteristics of the "new manager" Challenges of a "new manager" Questions/answers When your group has completed this outline, please advise the timer. The timer will stop the watch and hand each person a yellow sheet with five questions. You will have 5 minutes to think about the questions and write down your own answers. Then, you will have 10 minutes to discuss the questions and answers with your group members. The scribe should summarize the groups' comments to each question on the pink page. It is very important that each group member participates in this process. The time it take for you to complete the yellow and pink pages will be subtracted from the total amount of time for this exercise. 140

PAGE 148

You will have 15 minutes to complete the following questions (5 minutes to answer the questions individually and 10 minutes to discuss as a group). When your timer indicates you may begin the discussion, please thoughtfully discuss the questions as a group by each person contributing their ideas and comments. The scribe should summarize the comments and discussion on the pink sheet of paper. 1. Describe and discuss your role in the exercise you have just completed (i.e. what were your contributions?) 2. What factors do you believe contributed most to completing the task? 3. What do you believe got in the way of achieving even better results? 4. Describe and discuss what you learned about the group during the exercise you just completed? 5. Describe and discuss how the group can be more effective in future exercises? When 15 minutes are finished, your timer will advise you and you may continue by opening Envelope #4. 141

PAGE 149

Envelope #3 Your group has made a decision that you WILL NOT continue with presentation in Joe Duncan's absence. The group is to prepare an outline for a letter to Paul Johnson, Chairman, Jr. Achievement Committee on the note paper that is provided for you. The outline for the letter should include the following: List 3 reasons for not doing the presentation.. List 3 possible topics that you suggest they consider for an alternate presentation. List 2 possible ways the management group can make up for this inconvenience to the Jr. Achievement Committee. Each member should sign his/her first and last name at the bottom of the outline in alphabetical order by last name. When your group has completed this outline, please advise the timer. The timer will stop the watch and hand each person a yellow sheet with five questions. You will have 5 minutes to think about the questions and write down your own answers. Then, you will have 10 minutes to discuss the questions and answers with your group members. The scribe should summarize the groups' comments to each question on the pink page. It is very important that each group member participates in this process. The time it take for you to complete the yellow and pink pages will be subtracted from the total amount of time for this exercise. 142

PAGE 150

Envelope #4 Office Memorandum To: Joe Duncan From: Jill Reynolds, Employee Relations Subject: Mary Anderson This memo is to inform you that Mary Anderson has been offered a position with JK Corporation. As you may recall, Mary was hired by AGC six months ago. She had 5 years engineering experience prior to coming to AGC and filled a need we had between new engineers and experienced engineers (10+ years). Her performance has been outstanding according to her supervisor and peers. JK Corporation has offered Mary a starting salary that is 10,000 dollars above her current salary at AGC Corporation. When we hired her, we offered the best we could, far above any other engineers of her background and experience. I should also tell you that she is working on the design of our most advanced gasket. Losing Mary may put us behind several months in meeting our deadlines to Colorado Chemical and Equipment Corporation. Please advise me no later than Monday afternoon as to whether AGC will extend her another offer or not. Thank you. 143

PAGE 151

Envelope #4 Instructions-Criteria for Personnel Issue -Mary Anderson Your group is to make a consensus decision as to whether or not you will make a counter-offer to Mary with a salary increase of $12,000. Once you have made a decision as a group, please circle the decision you have made on the green page and each group member must sign the page. Continue following directions given on the green page. 144

PAGE 152

Please circle the group's decision: Our group has decided we WILL/WILL NOT make a counter-offer to Mary of $12,000. Signed (by each group member): If the decision is the group WILL make a counter-offer to Mary, please open Envelope #5. If the decision is the group WILL NOT make a counter-offer to Mary, please open Envelope #6. 145

PAGE 153

Envelope #5 Your group has made a decision that you WILL make a counter offer of $12,000 to Mary. Please draft an outline of a response to Jill Reynolds that includes the following: List 3 reasons to support your counter-offer. Recommend one of the following employees to replace Mary on this important gasket design project IF she does NOT take your counter-offer. 1. Frank: Employee of AGC. Three years total experience with a Masters degree in engineering. Rated excellent by Supervisor and peers. Energetic and talented, however, he lacks design experience traditionally required by this type of project. Will require 3 weeks of design school and it is estimated it will take him about 6 months to be comfortable in this new role. 2. Terry: Employee of AGC with 25 years total experience; Bachelors degree. Rated excellent by Supervisor, rated only fair by peers. Has experience necessary for position, however, he has been informally talking about retiring in 6 months. Write 3 ideas describing how you will address the following issue that is likely to arise from a male engineer with 15 years experience at AGC: "I have 10 more years total experience than Mary. I was given only a 3% salary increase last year. The quality of my work is superior according to my supervisor. You are giving special treatment to a female. Why should I work long hours for this company when there is no reward for me?" When your group has completed this outline, please advise the timer. The timer will stop the watch and hand each person a yellow sheet with five questions. You will have 5 minutes to think about the questions and write down your own answers. Then, you will have 10 minutes to discuss the questions and answers with your group members. The scribe should summarize the groups' comments to each question on the pink page. It is very important that each group member participates in this process. The time it take for you to complete the yellow and pink pages will be subtracted from the total amount of time for this exercise. 146

PAGE 154

You will have 15 minutes to complete the following questions (5 minutes to answer the questions individually and 10 minutes to discuss as a group). When your timer indicates you may begin discussion, please thoughtfully discuss the questions as a group by each person contributing their ideas and comments. The scribe should summarize the comments and discussion on one sheet of paper. 1. Describe and discuss your role in the exercise you have just completed (i.e. what were your contributions?) 2. What factors do you believe contributed most to completing the task? 3. What do you believe got in the way of achieving even better results? 4. Describe and discuss what you learned about the group during the exercise you just completed? 5. Describe and discuss how the group can be more effective in future exercises? When 15 minutes are finished, your timer will advise you and you may continue by opening Envelope #7. 147

PAGE 155

Envelope#& Your group has made a decision that you WILL NOT make a counter offer of a $12,000 increase to Mary. Please draft an outline of a response to Jill Reynolds that includes the following: List 2 reasons for not making the counter-offer to Mary. Recommend one of the following employees to replace Mary on this important gasket design project: 1. Frank: Employee of AGC. Three years total experience with a Masters degree in engineering. Rated excellent by Supervisor and peers. Energetic and talented, however, he lacks design experience traditionally required by this type of project. Will require 3 weeks of design school and it is estimated it will take him about 6 months to be comfortable in this new role. 2. Terry: Employee of AGC with 25 years total experience; Bachelors degree. Rated excellent by Supervisor, rated only fair by peers. Has experience necessary for position, however, he has been informally talking about retiring in 6 months. List 3 reasons supporting your recommendation of Frank or Terry as Mary's replacement. When your group has completed this outline, please advise the timer. The timer will stop the watch and hand each person a yellow sheet with five questions. You will have 5 minutes to think about the questions and write down your own answers. Then, you will have 10 minutes to discuss the questions and answers with your group members. The scribe should summarize the group's comments to each question on the pink page. It is very important that each group member participates in this process. The time it take for you to complete the yellow and pink pages will be subtracted from the total amount of time for this exercise. 148

PAGE 156

Envelope #7 Joe Duncan Re: Union Elections On several recent occasions, I have noticed that you and your staff of managers have employed your company newspaper as a vehicle for undermining the present union administration. In addition, a series of supervisory bulletins have been circulated that were designed to cause supervisory personnel to influence the thinking of union members in the upcoming union election in six weeks. I am also well aware of your "support" for Jessie Sims and others, who have been more than sympathetic towards company management. As you know, such behaviors as I have described are in direct violation of Section 101, Subsection 9 (a) of the Labor-Management Relations Act, as well as being a violation of Article 21 of our contract with your company. I am sure that you are also aware of the negative impact the filing of a charge of unfair management practices could have on future elections and negotiations. I trust such action will not become necessary and that you will take steps to prevent any further discrimination against this administration. Sincerely, R. P. Jones, President A. F. F. W., Local 801 149

PAGE 157

Envelope #7 Instructions-Criteria for Union Letter Make a consensus decision as to whether you want to address this issue in Joe Duncan's absence or wait for his return. Once you have made a decision as a group, please circle the decision you have made on the green page and each group member must sign the page. Continue following directions given on the green page. 150

PAGE 158

Please circle your group's decision: Our group has decided we WILL/WILL NOT address this Union issue in Joe Duncan's absence. Signed (by each group member): If the decision is the group WILL address this Union issue during John Duncan's absence, please open Envelope #8. If the decision is group the WILL NOT address this Union issue during John Duncan's absence, please open Envelope #9. 151

PAGE 159

Envelope #8 Your group had made a decision that you WILL address this issue during John Duncan's absence. Please do the following: List 2 ways to prevent further perceptions of discrimination against the union administration. List 3 points to be covered in a letter to the Editor of the company newsletter describing your regret that previous articles were misconstrued as undermining the present union administration. List 3 points to be addressed in a letter to R. P. Jones regretting the misunderstanding. Please advise the timekeeper when you have completed this exercise. Thank you for your participation. 152

PAGE 160

Envelope #9 Your group has decide that you WILL NOT address this issue in Joe Duncan's absence. Please do the following: List 2 recommendations to prevent further perceptions of discrimination against the union administration. Identify 3 points to be addressed in a letter to the Editor of the company newsletter (to be signed by Joe Duncan) describing your regret that previous articles were misconstrued as undermining the present union administration Identify 3 points to be addressed in a letter (to be signed by Joe Duncan) toR. P. Jones regretting the misunderstanding. Please advise the timekeeper when you have completed this exercise. Thank you for your participation. 153

PAGE 161

Groups C Group Reflection Instructions for Timers 1. Hand out "Instructions for Group Participants" and "AGC Plant Synopsis" (stapled together) to each group member. 2. Time 3 minutes for them to read above pages. 3. After 3 minutes, tell the group to open Envelope #1. Begin timing immediately. 4. When group notifies you they have completed the task, stop the time. Write down elapsed time on attached sheet by Task 1. (Clear watch.) 5. Hand-out one "Yellow" page (packet 1) to each group member. Time 5 minutes for the group members to read the questions and individually answer them. Tell the group when 5 minutes is up. 6. Hand the "Pink" page to the Scribe (one of the group members). Time the group for 10 minutes. During this time, they are to discuss the questions and their observations. The scribe is to summarize the discussion on the pink page. Tell the group when 10 minutes are up. Collect the "Yellow" and "Pink" pages. 7. Tell the group to open Envelope #4. Begin timing immediately. 8. When group notifies you they have completed the task, stop the time. Write down elapsed time on attached sheet by Task 2. (Clear watch.) 9. Hand-out one "Yellow" page (packet 2) to each group member. Time 5 minutes for the group members to read the questions and individually answer them. Tell the group when 5 minutes is up. 10. Hand the "Pink" page to the Scribe (one of the group members). Time the group for 10 minutes. During this time, they are to discuss the questions and their observations. The scribe is to summarize the discussion on the pink page. Tell the group when 10 minutes are up. Collect the "Yellow" and "Pink" pages. 154

PAGE 162

11. Tell group to open Envelope #7. Begin timing immediately. 12. When group notifies you they have completed the task, stop the time. Write down elapsed time on attached sheet by Task 3. 13. Collect "green" sheets (3). 14. Dismiss the group. 155

PAGE 163

APPENDIX C FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PARTICIPANTS 156

PAGE 164

FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PARTICIPANTS Group# ____ Check one: Male ----Female ____ Age Group: 15-19__ 20 -29 __ 3039 __ 4049 --50-59 60 -69 -70-79 __ Student: Yes --No __ Occupation: ____________ For each question, please circle the number that indicates your opinion of structured reflection: 1 =To No Extent 2 = To Some Extent 3 = Moderately 4 = To a Great Extent 5 =To a Very Great Extent 1. To what extent did structured reflection positively impact the effectiveness of your group completing the exercise? 1 2 3 4 5 2. To what extent did structured reflection positively impact the amount of time required to complete the exercise? 1 2 3 4 5 3. To what extent did structured reflection impact your 1 2 3 4 5 group's overall performance in completing exercise? 157

PAGE 165

Please answer the following questions using your own words: 4. In your opinion; what value was added to your group by the structured reflection experience? 5. How did the structured reflection process impact the results of the group's task? 6. What did you like about the structured reflection process? Why? 7. What did you not like about the structured reflection process? Why? 158

PAGE 166

WORKS CITED Argyris, Chris. Overcoming Organizational Defenses: Facilitating Organizational Learning. Boston: Sylvan and Bacon, 1990. Argyris, Chris. "Education for Leading-Learning." Organizational Dynamics. (Winter 1993): 5-17. Bennis, Warren. On Becoming a Leader. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. 1989. Chickering, A Experience and Learning: An Introduction to Experiential Learning. NY: Change Magazine Press. 1987. Columbia Associates in Philosophy: Buermeyer, Laurence; Cooley, William Forbes; Coss, John J.; Friess, Horace L.; Guttmann, James; Munro, James; Peterson, Houston; Randall John H. Jr.; Schneider Herbert W. An Introduction to Reflective Thinking. Cambridge: The Riverside Press, 1923. Cruisckshank, Donald R. Reflective Teaching: The Preparation of Students of Teaching. Reston, VA: Association of Teacher Educators, 1987. Day, Christopher. "Reflection: a necessary but not sufficient condition for professional development." British Educational Research Journal. Vol 19, No.1, 1993. Dewey, John. How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1933. Graves, N., and Graves, T. What is Cooperative Learning? Tips for Teachers and Trainers. 2nd Ed. Santa Cruz: Cooperative College of California, 1990. 159

PAGE 167

Hughes, Richard L., Ginnett, Robert C. and Curphy, Gordon J. Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons of Experience. Boston, MA: Richard D. Irwin, Inc. 1993. Johnson, David W. and Johnson, Frank P. Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1987. Funk and Wagnall New Encyclopedia, Volume 8. (A company of Dunn and Bradstreet) Copyright MCMLXXI. Isaacs, William N. "Taking Flight: Dialogue, Collective Thinking, and Organizational Learning." Organizational Dynamics, (Winter, 1994): 24-39. Katzenbach, Jon R. and Smith, Douglas K. The Wisdom of Teams. Boston, MA: McKinsey and Company, Inc. 1989. Kim, Daniel H. "The Link between Individual and Organizational Learning." Sloan Management Review. (Fall1993): 37-50. Kolb, D., Rubin, I. and Mcintyre, J. Organizational Psychology: An Experiential Approach. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1971. Lee, Ginny V. and Barnett, Bruce G. "Using Reflective Questioning to Promote Collaborative Dialogue." Journal of Staff Development. (Winter 1994, Vol. 15, No.1): 16-21. Mitroff, I. I. Business Not as usual: Rethinking Our Individual. Corporate. and Industrial Strategies for Global Competition._ San Francisco: Jessey Bass, 1987. Nicol, David J., Kane, Kathleen A. and Wainwright, Cherry L. "Case Study: Improving Laboratory Learning through Group Working and Structured Reflection and Discussion." Educational and Training Technology International. (Nov. 1994, Vol. 31, No.1): 302-310. Pfeiffer, J. William. Reference Guide to Handbooks and Annuals (1992 ed.) San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer and Company, 1992. 160

PAGE 168

Schein, Edgar H. Organizational Psychology. 2nd Ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1979. Senge, Peter. "The Learning Organization." Innovation Associates, 1990. Senge, Peter M., Roberts, Charlotte, Ross, Richard B., Smith Bryan J., Kleiner, Art. The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. New York, NY: Doubleday. 1994. Sharan, Yael and Sharan, Shlomo. Expanding Cooperative Learning through Group Investigation. New York: Teachers College Press, 1992. Slavin, Robert E. Cooperative Learning. New York: Longman Inc. 1983. Yager, Stuart, Johnson, David, W., Johnson, Roger T. "Oral Discussion, Group-to-Individual Transfer, and Achievement in Cooperative Learning Groups." Journal of Educational Psychology f.Yo. 77, No. 1, 60-66) 1985. 161

PAGE 169

WORKS CONSUL TED Argyris, Chris. "Good Communication That Blocks Learning." Harvard Business Review. (July-August, 1994): 77-85. Drucker, Peter F. "The Theory of the Business." Harvard Business Review. September-October 1994, 95-104. Johnson, David W. The Social Psychology of Education. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. 1970. King, Patricia M. and Kitchener, Karen Strohm. Developing Reflective Judgment. San Francisco: Jessey-Bass, Inc. 1994. Kolb, David. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, 1: Prentice Hall. 1984. Mcleish, John, Matheson, Wayne and Park, James. The Psychology of the Learning Group. London: Hutchinson & Co. Ltd., 1973. Mulconrey, Brian G. "Create an Organizational Learning Laboratory." Researchffechnology Management. (March-April1994): 12-13. Norton, Janet Lynn. "Creative Thinking and the Reflective Practitioner." Journal of Instructional Psychology. Volume 21, Number 2. (June 1994): 139-147. Schon, Donald A. The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1983. Tsoukas, Haridimos. New Thinking jn Organizational Behavior. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd. 1994. Tuckman, Bruce W. "Developmental Sequence in Small Groups." Psychological Bulletin. Vol. 65., No.6, q965): 384-399. 162

PAGE 170

Vowles, Andrew. "Gaining Competitive Advantage Through Organizational Learning." CMA Magazine. (April1993): 12-14. 163