• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Link Between Faculty Group Development and Elementary Student Performance on Standardized Tests

Posted on: Saturday, 9 July 2005, 03:01 CDT

ABSTRACT

The authors investigated the relationship between perceived effectiveness of elementary school faculty groups as a whole and student performances on standardized tests. Participants included the principal and all teachers, referred to as the faculty group, in 61 elementary schools. Members of the faculty group in each school completed the Group Developmental Questionnaire, an instrument that assesses the developmental level of work groups. The authors obtained data regarding the percentage of 4th-grade students who met the state proficiency standard in citizenship, reading, science, mathematics, and writing in each school. Results suggest that school demographics (staff size, rural or urban location, and district poverty level) significantly influenced student outcomes. In addition, the manner in which faculty members who worked together as a group significantly influenced student outcomes in schools with similar demographic profiles. Findings suggest that if faculty members work together to become more trusting, more cooperative, and work oriented, student learning and performance can be affected positively. Therefore, the authors recommend interventions designed to help faculty groups work together effectively.

Key words: elementary students, faculty group development, standardized tests

Until recently, neither American school cultures nor business cultures valued teamwork (Johnson, 1990; Kanter, 1983; Sergiovanni, 1992; Walton, 1985). Now, however, teamwork abounds in both contexts. Change came first to business organizations. The shift in focus from the individual worker to teamwork emerged, in part, from a growing awareness of the role of groups in facilitating or blocking individual and organizational effectiveness. This trend also was fueled by the business need to find new methods to compete in a global economy and the fact that the complexity of work at this point in history requires collaboration. Too much knowledge and too many different skills are required for any individual to successfully accomplish such complex tasks alone (Reich, 1987). In addition, group decision making can lead to significant increases in productivity (e. g., Lumsden 6k Lumsden, 1993; Poole, 1991). As a result, an increasing number of organizations are relying on the team as the primary vehicle for accomplishing goals and improving productivity (Devine, clayton, Philips, Dunford, & Melner, 1999; Lawler, Mohrman, & Ledford, 1995).

The culture of schools was slower than was the culture of business to change. Despite well-articulated arguments that faculty teamwork and collegiality would positively affect student learning (e. g., Futlan, 1993; O'Neil, 1995), school cultures continued to focus on improving individual teachers' skills as the means to increase student learning (Hart, 1990). Most faculty development programs aim to improve individual teacher behavior, such as teaching methods, classroom management techniques, and new approaches to teaching specific content areas. Studies of individual teacher improvement efforts, however, consistently demonstrate that many teachers do not use these new approaches in their daily interactions with students (Bush, 1984; Hart; Sizer, 1992).

In the search for strategies to improve student achievement, however, teamwork has become commonplace in the nation's schools. This change was caused, in part, by research that linked effective teams with improved productivity in the workplace (e.g., Larson & LaFasto, 1989; Sundstrom, DeMeuse, & Futrell, 1990; Wheelan, Murphy, Tsumura, 6k Fried-Kline, 1998). More important, a growing body of research links faculty collegiality and collaboration, school climate, and culture with student achievement (e. g., Bruner & Greenlee, 2000; Flowers, Mertens, & Mulhull, 1999; Hoy & Hannum, 1997; Peterson, 1997; Zigarelli, 1996).

Some of the kinds of teams that operate in the majority of U.S. schools include (a) faculty groups as a whole, (b) grade-level teams, (c) vertical teams, (d) school leadership teams, and (e) site- based management teams. The implementation of those teams is a very positive development, but an important issue remains unaddressed. The relationship between faculty-group effectiveness and student achievement has not been investigated sufficiently. Relationships between faculty collegiality, faculty collaboration, school climate or culture, and student achievement have been investigated. However, the relationship between faculty-group effectiveness and student achievement has received much less attention. Of the few studies that investigated this relationship, the majority have been case studies (e.g., Asayesh, 1993; Joyce & Showers, 1995; Siegel &. Byrne, 1994; Trimble & Peterson, 2000). Those case studies were observational in nature and did not assess or measure faculty-group effectiveness in any way; therefore, it is difficult for one to evaluate the validity of the studies' conclusions.

Geske and Teddlie (1990) called for the use of reliable and valid instruments to determine the actual relationship between faculty- group effectiveness and student achievement. Wheelan and TiHn (1999) used such an instrument to investigate that relationship in 10 schools. They found significant, positive relationships between the level of group development of 10 faculty groups and student achievement on standardized tests. We designed the present study to replicate and expand on those findings.

The relationship between work-group effectiveness and productivity has been established in a variety of other industries and institutions (e.g., Bassin, 1988; Evans & Dion, 1991; Greene, 1989; Hackman, 1987; Wheelan et al., 1998). As a result, the development of effective work groups is an essential component of organizational success (e.g., Bassin, 1988; Reich, 1987; Sundstrom et al., 1990). Helping teams to move to higher stages of development has become a priority for the majority of business organizations (Devine et al, 1999).

The concept of group development is well documented in the literature (e.g., Bennis & Shepard, 1956; Bion, 1961; Mann, 1966; Schutz, 1966; Wheelan, 1994). Researchers have conducted extensive reviews of the literature to consolidate previous work and to propose a unified model of group development (e.g., Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen, 1977; Wheelan, 1990, 1994). A brief description of the integrated model of group development (Wheelan, 1990, 1994) follows. The validity of the integrated model has been established in a number of investigations (Verdi & Wheelan, 1992; Wheelan & Abraham, 1993; Wheelan, Davidson, & Tilin, 2003; Wheelan & Krasick, 1993; Wheelan & McKeage, 1992).

The first stage of group development (dependency and inclusion) is characterized by significant member dependency on the designated leader, concerns about safety, and inclusion issues. In Stage 1, members rely on the leader to provide direction. Group members may engage in activities such as exchanging stories about outside events or other activities that are not relevant to group goals. During this stage, members tend to agree with the suggestions made by the leader. However, levels of productivity tend to be low.

The second stage of group development is referred to as a period of counterdependency and fight. At Stage 2, members disagree among themselves about group goals and procedures. Conformity with emerging group norms, evident at Stage 1, decreases; conflict is an inevitable part of this stage. The group's task is to develop a unified set of goals, values, norms, and operational procedures. That task inevitably generates some conflict, which is necessary for the establishment of trust and a climate in which members feel free to disagree with each other.

If the group manages to work through the inevitable conflicts of Stage 2, member trust, commitment to the group, and willingness to cooperate increase; communication becomes more open and task oriented. The third stage of group development, referred to as the trust and structure stage, is characterized by mature negotiations about roles, organization, and procedures. Stage 3 also is a time in which members work to solidify positive relationships with each other. Member conformity with group goals and norms increases during Stage 3 because consensus about these goals and norms has been achieved; group productivity begins to increase as well.

The fourth, or work, stage of group development is a time of intense group productivity and effectiveness. Having resolved many of the issues of the previous stages, the group can focus most of its energy on goal achievement and task accomplishment.

Groups that function at the higher stages of development are more productive. Links between the stage at which a work group is functioning and that group's productivity have been established in recent studies. For example, members of undergraduate cohort groups functioning at higher stages of development received higher grade point averages did than members of cohort groups functioning at lower stages of development (Wheelan & Lisk, 2000). Financial teams functioning at higher stages of development generated more revenue in less time and were rated more positiv\ely with regard to customer service (Wheelan et al., 1998). Intensive care units functioning at higher stages of group development had better patient outcomes than did other intensive care units (Wheelan, Burchill, & Tilin, 2003).

Not all groups reach the higher stages of group development, however (Gabarro, 1987; Goodacre, 1951; Zurcher, 1969). Some groups remain stuck in, or regress to, earlier stages of development. Such groups are less productive and have less influence over member behaviors and attitudes.

Groups that function at more mature levels of group development have more influence over member behaviors and attitudes than do other groups (Asch, 1951; Morris & Miller, 1975; Tuckman, 1965; Wheelan, 1994; Wyer, 1966). That results because members participate in establishing goals, norms, roles, and procedures. It follows, then, that faculty groups functioning at higher stages of group development include members who behave in accordance with group goals, norms, and policies because those members support their adoption. Thus, faculty members of mature faculty groups should be more committed than are members of other groups to making the improvements in curriculum and teaching methods necessary to improve student outcomes (Fullan, 1993; Johnson, 1990;O'Neil, 1995; Sergiovanni, 1992; Sizer, 1992).

In Wheelan and Tilin's (1999) study, faculty members in schools in which students performed well on standardized tests rated their faculty groups as more trusting, structured, work oriented, effective, and productive than other faculty groups. More research is needed, however, to confirm those results. Wheelan and Tilin's study was limited because the researchers included high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools in the small sample of 10 schools. Therefore, students were measured by different standardized tests. In addition, the 10 schools were diverse with regard to demographics. For example, some schools were in wealthy communities and others were in poor communities. Although the study dealt well with those constraints, a larger sample that focused on one educational level would be useful. Also, researchers could gather that larger sample from schools in which students take the same proficiency test. Finally, limiting community income differentials among the schools also seems advisable. We designed our study to address all of those issues.

Procedure

We investigated the relationship between teacher perceptions of faculty-group effectiveness and development and actual levels of faculty productivity in 61 Ohio elementary schools. We attempted to link directly facultygroup effectiveness and faculty productivity by using valid and reliable instruments (Geske & Teddlie, 1990). We investigated the following questions:

1. Are there significant differences in the performance of fourth- grade students on standardized tests in schools in which faculty- group members perceive their faculty group as a whole to be functioning at the higher versus lower stages of group development?

2. Are there significant differences in the performance of fourth- grade students on standardized tests or in teachers' and principals' perceptions of their faculty groups on the basis of school demographics, including faculty size, rural or urban location, and district poverty level?

Method

Participants

To examine the developmental profile of faculty groups, we asked elementary school faculties to participate in this research project. Our group of interest in this study was the faculty group as a whole, which consisted of the principal and all the teachers in a particular school. We established an available sample from schools that were willing to participate in the project. Teachers and principals from 61 Ohio elementary schools participated in this study during the 1999-2000 or 2000-2001 school year. All schools that were approached agreed to participate.

Only schools that included fourth-grade students were eligible to participate in the study. Thirty-four of the schools were in urban locations; 27 schools were in rural areas. According to the state classification system, 27 schools were in average- to low'poverty districts, and 34 schools were in high-poverty districts. All the schools were eligible for Title I funding; none were in high-income districts.

The faculty groups included 7 to 56 persons and totaled 2,280 members. Of those, 2,245 (98.5%) participated in the study. The remaining 35 faculty members (1.5%) were absent on the day that we collected data at their school. The majority of faculty members taught a particular grade level within a self-contained classroom. To ensure anonymity, we did not include individual demographics in this study. However, the great majority of faculty members were Caucasian women between the ages of 40 and 55.

Data Collection

Eight school facilitators housed in educational service centers across the state collected data between November and March during the 1999-2000 or 2000-2001 school year. We trained the facilitators to administer the Group Development Questionnaire (GDQ; Wheelan & Hochberger, 1996) prior to data collection; all faculty group members completed the GDQ. We obtained data regarding the percentage of fourth-grade students who met the state proficiency standard in citizenship, reading, science, mathematics, and writing in each of the 61 schools for the year in which the GDQ was administered to the faculty groups.

Instrument

The GDQ was designed to assess the developmental level of work groups. On the basis of the Integrative Model of Group Development, the 60-item GDQ (Wheelan & Hochberger, 1996) contains four scales that correspond to the first four stages of group development. Each scale contains 15 items.

The items on Scale 1 (Stage 1: dependency and inclusion) measure the amount of energy that a group expends when it deals with issues of dependency and inclusion. We designed test questions to identify the presence or absence of the characteristic behaviors of groups at the first stage of development. Questions on Scale 2 (Stage 2: counterdependency and fight) ascertain the degree of group focus placed on issues of conflict, counterdependency, and other characteristics associated with the second stage of development. Scale 3 (Stage 3: trust and structure) assesses the degree of trust and structure that is present in the group. Scale 3, then, is related to issues associated with the third stage of group development. Scale 4 assesses the characteristics of Stage 4 (Stage 4: work). Table 1 contains sample items from each GDQ scale.

Each item is scored from 1 (never true of this group) to 5 (always true of this group). Therefore, the minimum score on each scale is 15; the maximum score is 75. An effectiveness ratio is also determined by dividing a team's actual mean score on the GDQ Scale 4 by its potential maximum score (75).

TABLE 1. Sample Items From the Group Development Questionnaire (GDQ) Scale

Each faculty group member chose the number that most accurately described, in his or her opinion, the faculty group as a whole at the time of assessment. The numbers are 1 (never true of this group), 2 (rarely true of this group), 3 (sometimes true of this group), 4 (frequently true of this group), and 5 (always true of this group). Groups that functioned at the higher stages of group development had higher mean scores on Scales 3 and 4 and lower mean scores on Scales 1 and 2 than did groups that functioned at lower stages of group development. We also determined an effectiveness ratio by dividing a team's mean score on GDQ Scale 4 by its potential maximum mean score (75); therefore, the minimum effectiveness ratio is 20% and the maximum is 100%. A group's productivity mean represents the group members' combined average response to the question, "In your opinion, how productive is this group?" Each group member chose the number that most accurately described, in his or her opinion, the group's productivity at the time of the assessment. The numbers include 1 (not at all productive), 2 (fairly productive), 3 (moderately productive), and 4 (very productive).

We determined a group's overall stage by considering the mean scores of the four scales. During Stage 1 of group development, the mean score on GDQ Scale 1 is at its highest, and scores on the other three scales are relatively low. During Stage 2, the mean score of GDQ Scale 2 is at its highest, and scores on the other three scales remain relatively low. At Stage 3, mean scores on GDQ Scales 3 and 4 begin to increase, and mean scores on GDQ Scales 1 and 2 remain low. Finally, at Stage 4, mean scores on GDQ Scales 3 and 4 continue to increase, whereas mean scores on GDQ Scales 1 and 2 remain low (Wheelan, Davidson, & TiHn, 2003).

To ensure the reliability and validity of the GDQ, Wheelan and Hochberger (1996) subjected the instrument to a number of statistical tests. The authors calculated test-retest correlations for each scale. The correlations were as follows: GDQ Scale 1, r = .74, p = .001; GDQ Scale 2, r = .89, p = .001; GDQ Scale 3, r = .69, p = .001; GDQ Scale 4, r = .82, p = .001. The authors investigated the internal consistency of each 15-item scale by using Cronbach's alpha. Alpha coefficients ranged from .66 to .88. To establish concurrent validity, Wheelan and Hochberger also correlated the GDQ with the Group Attitude Scale (GAS; Evans & Jarvis, 1986). The GAS measures member attraction to the group. The results indicated that the concurrent validity of the GDQ and GAS is in the moderate range, with significant positive correlations between the two measures overall. Results from this study were consistent with those of previous studies (Wheelan, Burchill, & TiHn, 2003; Wheelan & Lisk, 2000; Wheelan et al, 1998; Wheelan & Tilin, 1999). GDQ Scales 1 and 2 were correlated negatively with GDQ Scales 3 and 4. GDQ Scales 3 and 4 were correlated positively with the effectiveness ratio, \productivity mean, and stage of group development.

Criterion-related validity also was investigated. Work groups that ranked high on organizational measures of productivity had significantly higher scores on GDQ Scales 3 and 4 than did groups that ranked lower on these measures. Likewise, groups that ranked high on organizational measures of productivity had significantly lower scores on GDQ Scales 1 and 2 (Wheelan & Lisk, 2000; Wheelan et al, 1998; Wheelan & Tilin, 1999).

We used the Ohio Fourth Grade Proficiency Tests to measure student performance. Although there are differing opinions about whether standardized test scores accurately reflect student learning or are indicators of faculty productivity and effectiveness, the scores are used across the country for those purposes. In addition, we required a standard method to compare the 61 schools. The Ohio Fourth Grade Proficiency Tests, which have been used since 1995, met that requirement. The tests include citizenship, reading, science, mathematics, and writing. Content committees, whose members are recommended by professional education organizations statewide, develop the tests. Each of the five committees has 25 members, of whom at least half are teachers. Test questions must be aligned with Ohio's model competency-based programs in each subject area. The committees develop test questions. Next, each question goes through a five-step process before a committee determines that it is appropriate for inclusion in the proficiency test. A proposed question is reviewed for fit with established learning outcomes and for bias or sensitivity. If the item works well when field tested, then the content committee reviews it again. If the committee makes changes to the item, it is field tested a second time. Only items that pass through all those steps are included in the item bank and used in either the proficiency tests or practice tests (Ohio Department of Education, 2003).

Results

We analyzed GDQ results from each school. On the basis of the results, we placed each school faculty group into one of the four stages of group development. Next, we combined school faculty groups that teachers (including participating principals throughout the article) perceived were in the lower stages of group development (Stage 1 or 2). We also combined schools that teachers perceived were in the higher stages of group development (Stage 3 or 4). Of the 61 school faculty groups, teachers perceived that 36 faculty groups functioned at the lower stages of group development and that 25 faculty groups functioned at the higher stages of group development.

To answer the primary research question, we conducted analyses of variance. We compared the percentage of children who met the state proficiency standard for citizenship, mathematics, reading, writing, and science in schools where teachers perceived that their faculty group functioned at the lower stages of group development with the percentage of children who met those standards in schools where teachers perceived that their faculty group functioned at the higher stages of group development.

We noted significant differences on three of the five tests. Significantly more children were proficient in citizenship, F(1, 59) = 11.92, p = .001, in schools where teachers perceived that faculty groups functioned at higher stages of group development than in schools in which teachers perceived that faculty groups functioned at the lower stages of group development. That finding was also the case for reading, F(1, 59) = 4.65, p = .03, and science, F(1, 59) = 3.87, p = .05. Although we noted no significant differences in student proficiency for mathematics and writing, a higher percentage of students were proficient in mathematics and science in schools where teachers perceived that the faculty group functioned at the higher stages of group development (see Table 2).

Because this is a field study, we explored school and district demographics to rule out the possibility that potential findings might be based on systematic demographic differences, which could threaten the validity of the study. We used a series of analyses of variance to answer that question.

Staff Size

We compared student outcomes in schools in which the number of staff was less than 30 with student outcomes in schools with more than 30 staff members. We did not note any significant differences in the percentage of students who met the proficiency standard in mathematics, reading, writing, or science. We noted a significant difference, however, F(1, 59) = 5.17 p = .027, in the percentage of students who met the proficiency standard in citizenship. In schools with less than 30 staff members, 59.4% of the students met the proficiency standard in citizenship versus 47.2% in schools with 30 or more staff members.

TABLE 2. Percentage of Fourth-Grade Students Meeting Proficiency Standard in Schools Containing Low- Versus High-Functioning Faculty Groups

To further explore that finding, we analyzed separately schools in which the number of staff was 30 or less and schools with more than 30 staff members. Of the 34 schools with less than 30 staff members, teachers perceived that 18 faculty groups were in the lower stages of group development and that 16 faculty groups functioned in the higher stages of group development. We did not observe any significant differences in the performance of fourth-grade students in mathematics, reading, writing, or science. However, a significant difference, F(1, 32) = 6.43, p = .016, occurred in citizenship. In the 16 schools where faculty members perceived that the faculty groups functioned at the higher stages of group development, significantly more fourth-grade students met the state proficiency standard in citizenship. In schools where faculty members perceived that the faculty group functioned at the higher stages of group development, 68.3% of the students met the proficiency standard in citizenship, versus 51.5% in schools where faculty members perceived that the faculty group functioned at the lower stages of group development.

Of the 27 schools with more than 30 staff members, teachers perceived that 18 faculty groups were in the lower stages of group development and that 9 faculty groups functioned in the higher stages of group development. We did not observe any significant differences in the performance of fourth-grade students in citizenship, mathematics, reading, or writing. However, we noted a significant difference, F(1, 25) = 5.02, p = .034, in science. In the 9 schools in which teachers perceived that the faculty group functioned at the higher stages of group development, significantly more fourth-grade students met the state proficiency standard in science. In the schools in which faculty members perceived that the faculty group functioned at the higher stages of group development, 53.6% of the students met the proficiency standard in science versus 34-6% of students in schools in which the members perceived that the faculty group functioned at the lower stages of group development.

Rural Versus Urban Location

We also explored the location of the schools in rural versus urban districts. Of the 61 schools, 27 were in rural locations; 34 were in urban locations. We observed no significant differences in the percentage of students who met the proficiency standard in reading in rural versus urban districts. There were significant differences on the other four tests, however. Significantly more fourth-grade students were proficient in citizenship, F(1, 59) = 4- 38, p = .041, in rural versus urban schools. Significant differences also occurred for mathematics, F(1, 59) = 4-79, p = .033, writing, F(1, 59) = 7.19,p = .009, and science, F(1, 59) = 5.04, p = .029. Table 3 shows the percentage of students who met the state proficiency standard in each of the subject areas.

We analyzed separately schools in rural versus urban districts. Of the 27 schools located in rural districts, teachers perceived that 13 faculty groups were in the lower stages of group development and 14 faculty groups were functioning in the higher stages of group development. No significant differences occurred in fourth-grade students' performance in mathematics, reading, writing, or science. However, a significant difference, F(1,25) = 5.11, p = .033, occurred in citizenship. In the 14 schools where teachers perceived that the faculty groups were functioning at the higher stages of group development, 65.5% of the students met the proficiency standard in citizenship versus 54.6% of students in schools where the faculty group was perceived as functioning at the lower stages of group development. Although no significant differences occurred in student proficiency in the other four subject areas, a higher percentage of students were proficient in all of these subjects in schools where teachers perceived that the faculty group was functioning at the higher stages of group development.

Of the 34 schools located in urban districts, teachers perceived that 23 faculty groups were in the lower stages of group development and that 11 faculty groups were functioning in the higher stages of group development. No significant differences occurred in fourth- grade students' performance in mathematics, reading, writing, or science. However, a significant difference, F(1, 32) = 5.82, p = .022, occurred in citizenship. In the 11 urban schools in which teachers perceived that faculty groups were functioning at higher stages of group development, 63.1% of the fourth-grade students met the proficiency standard in citizenship versus 42.4% in urban schools in which the faculty group was perceived as functioning at the lower stages of group development. As in the rural schools, a higher percentage of students were proficient in subjects in schools in which the faculty group was perceived as functioning at the higher stages of group development.

TABLE 3. Percent\age of Fourth-Grade Students Meeting Proficiency Standard in Rural Versus Urban Schools

TABLE 4. Percentage of Fourth-Grade Students Meeting Proficiency Standard in High-Poverty Versus Low- or Average-Poverty Schools

Poverty Level

The final demographic variable that we investigated was the economic level of the participating school districts. Of the 61 schools studied, 34 were located in school districts classified as high-poverty areas; 27 schools were located in school districts classified as low- or average-poverty areas. We found no significant differences in the percentage of students that met the state proficiency standard in citizenship or science in high- versus low- or average-poverty areas. However, we did find important differences on the other three tests. Significantly more children were proficient in mathematics, F(1, 59) = 4.23, p = .044, reading, F(1, 59) =4.13, p = .047, and writing, F(1, 59) = 13.5, p = .001, in schools located in low- or average-poverty school districts than in schools located in high-poverty school districts. Table 4 shows the percentage of students who met the state proficiency standard in each of these subject areas.

We analyzed separately schools located in low- or average- poverty school districts and schools located in high-poverty school districts. Of the 34 schools located in high-poverty school districts, teachers perceived that 19 faculty groups were in the lower stages of group development and that 15 faculty groups were in the higher stages of group development. We noted significant differences in fourth-grade students' performance on all five standardized tests. In the 15 high-poverty schools in which teachers perceived that the faculty group was functioning at the higher stages of group development, significantly more students were proficient in citizenship, F(1, 32) = 15.6, p = .001, than were students in high-poverty schools in which teachers perceived that the faculty group was functioning at lower stages of group development. We also found that result for mathematics, F(1, 32) = 8.1, p = .008, reading, F(1, 32) = 7.8, p = .009, writing, F(1, 32) = 6.2, p = .018, and science, F(1, 32) = 7.7, p = .009. Table 5 shows the percentage of students who met the state proficiency standard in each of those subject areas.

TABLE 5. Percentage of Fourth-Grade Students Meeting Proficiency Standard in High-Poverty Schools With Low- Versus High-Functioning Faculty Groups

Of the 27 schools located in low- or average-poverty areas, teachers perceived that 17 faculty groups were in the lower stages of group development and that 10 faculty groups were in the higher stages of group development. We noted no significant differences in fourth-grade students' performance on any of the five standardized tests in low- or average-poverty schools in which members perceived that faculty groups were operating at the higher versus lower stages of group development.

Discussion

Our findings suggest that although staff size, rural or urban location, and district poverty level do influence student outcomes, the manner in which faculty members work together as a group also is influential, particularly in high-poverty schools. Professional educators have minimal or no control over school or district demographics. However, teachers and administrators have significant control over the way they work together as a group. The results of this study suggest that if faculty members work to become more trusting, cooperative, and work oriented as a group, student learning and performance will improve.

Those findings confirm and expand upon the findings of Wheelan and Tilin (1999) and add support to previous case studies (Asayesh, 1993; Joyce & Showers, 1995; Siegal & Byrne, 1994; Trimble & Peterson, 2000). The results also support the body of work linking faculty collegiality and collaboration, school climate, and culture with student achievement (e. g., Bruner & Greenlee, 2000; Hoy & Hannum, 1997; Peterson, 1997; Zigarelli, 1996). In addition, the results may help clarify terms such as collegiality, climate, and culture, which have proved difficult to measure (Hoy &. Hannum). Use of the GDQ provided a reliable and valid way for us to measure those factors and demonstrated the connection between student learning and performance and elements of school culture.

Our results suggest that one strategy that could be used to improve student learning and performance is to facilitate the development of high-functioning faculty groups. The GDQ provides a reliable and valid method to assess the current level of group development and to plan targeted strategies that facilitate the development of school faculty groups as a whole. Grade-level teams, administrative teams, and other school-based work groups undoubtedly would benefit from intervention as well. On the basis of our results and the findings from other industries, as these faculty groups and teams increase their effectiveness, productivity also will increase (e.g., Bassin, 1988; Evans &. Dion, 1991; Greene, 1989; Hackman, 1987; Wheelan et al., 1998).

The keys to successful intervention include the following elements. First, an accurate, detailed assessment of a group's current developmental level is critical. The use of reliable measures of group development (such as the GDQ) makes targeted intervention possible. second, successful intervention does not focus on individuals, personalities, or emotional issues. Instead, successful intervention focuses on the group as a system, the way that system is functioning, and what members can do to improve the group's effectiveness and productivity.

Third, successful intervention is guided by information. That is, information about group development, characteristics of effective teams, and the importance of taking a systemic, as opposed to an individual or interpersonal, view of group problems is an important step in the intervention process. Views that perceive individuals or interpersonal relationships as the reasons for group problems make positive change extremely unlikely because such views are taken personally, cause hurt or humiliation, and encourage retaliation. Cycles of blame, attacks, and counterattacks are the typical result. If group members can take a systemic view, then they can work together to improve the functioning of the group system; no individual would need to fear being blamed or threatened in any way.

The fourth key to successful intervention is for one to devise a strategy that allows group members, not consultants, to decide what to change and how to change in identified areas. The more directive a consultant is with a group, the less likely that group is to change. Consultants who act as educators and design a process in which the group can make its own decisions will have better results.

Although more research is needed regarding group functioning, the evidence is sufficient to support the development of intervention strategies designed to help school-based work groups improve their effectiveness. Student learning and performance are too important to do otherwise.

REFERENCES

Asayesh, G. (1993). Student outcomes. Journal of Staff Development, 14(3), 26-32.

Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgements. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men (pp. 177-190). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.

Bassin, M. (1988). Teamwork at General Foods: New and improved. Personnel Journal, 65(5), 62-70.

Bennis, W., & Shepard, H. (1956). A theory of group development. Human Relations, 9, 415-437.

Bion, W. (1961). Experiences in groups. New York: Basic Books.

Bruner, D. Y., & Greenlee, B. J. (2000). Measures of work culture in high and low performing schools. Research in the Schools, 7(2), 71-76.

Bush, R. N. (1984, November). Effective staff development. Paper presented at the Nevada Conference on Staff Development, Reno, NV.

Devine, D. J., clayton, L. D., Philips, J. L., Dunford, B. B., & Melner, S. B. (1999). Teams in organizations: Prevalence, characteristics, and effectiveness. Small Group Research, 30, 678- 711.

Evans, C. R., & Dion, K. L. (1991). Group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 22(2), 175-186.

Evans, N., & Jarvis, D. (1986). The group attitude scale: A measure of attraction to group. Small Group Behavior, 17(2), 203- 216.

Flowers, N., Mertens, S. B., & Mulhull, P. F. (1999). The impact of teaming: Five research-based outcomes. Middle School Journal, 31(2), 57-60.

Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. Boston: Palmer Press.

Gabarro, J. J. (1987). The development of working relationships. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 172- 189). Englewood Cliffs, N]: Prentice-Hall.

Geske, T, & Teddlie, C. (1990). Organizational productivity of schools. In P. Reyes (Ed.), Teachers and their workplace: Commitment, performance and productivity (pp. 86-95) Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Goodacre, D. M. (1951). The use of a sociometric test as a predictor of combat unit effectiveness. Sociometry, 14, 148-152.

Greene, C. N. (1989). Cohesion and productivity in work groups. Small Group Behavior, 20, 70-86.

Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior (pp. 315-342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hart, A. (1990). Managing school performance: The role of the administrator. In P Reyes, (Ed.), Teachers and their workplace: Commitment, performance and productivity (pp. 277-298). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hoy, W. K, & Hannum, J. W. (1997). Middle school climate: An empirical assessment of organizational health and student achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 33(3), 290-311.

Johnson, S. M. (1990). Teachers at work: Achieving success in our schools. New York: Basic Books.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1995). Student achievement through staff development: Fundamentals of \school renewal (2nd d.). New York: Longman.

Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Larson, C. E., & LaFasto, F. M. J. (1989). Team work: What must go right/What can go wrong. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Lawler, E. E., Ill, Mohrman, S. A,. & Ledford, G. E., Jr. (1995). Creating high performance organizations: Practices and results of employee involvement and total quality management in Fortune 1000 companies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lumsden, G., & Lumsden, D. (1993). Communicating in groups and teams: Sharing leadership. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Mann, R. (1966). The development of member and member-trainer relationships in self-analytic groups. Human Relations, 19(1), 85- 115.

Morris, W. N., & Miller, R. S. (1975). The effects of consensus- breaking and consensus pre-empting partners on reduction of conformity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 215-223.

Ohio Department of Education. (2003). Ohio test development process. Columbus, Ohio.

O'Neil, J. (1995). On schools as learning organizations: A conversation with Peter Senge. Educational Leadership, 52(7), 20- 23.

Peterson, A. M. (1997). Aspects of school climate: A review of the literature. ERS Spectrum, 15(1), 24-36.

Poole, M. S. (1991). Procedures for managing meetings: Social and technological innovation. In R. A. Swanson 6k B. O. Knapp (Eds.), Innovative meeting management (pp. 53-110). Austin, TX: 3M Meeting Management Institute.

Reich, R. B. (1987). Entrepreneurship reconsidered: The team as hero. Harvard Business Review, 65(3), 77-83.

Schutz, W. C. (1966). The interpersonal underworld. PaIo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books.

Sergiovanni, T. (1992). Moral leadership: Getting to the heart of school improvement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Siegel, P., & Byrne, S. (1994). Using quality to redesign school systems: The cutting edge of common sense. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

Sizer, T. R. (1992). Horace's school: Redesigning the American high school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Sundstrom, E., DeMeuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45(2), 120- 133.

Trimble, S. B., & Peterson, G. W. (2000, April). Multiple team structures and student learning in a high risk middle school. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA.

Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Development sequences in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384-399.

Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages in small group development revisited. Group and Organizational Studies, 2, 419- 427.

Verdi, A. F., & Wheelan, S. (1992). Developmental patterns in same-sex and mixed-sex groups. Small Group Research, 23(3), 356- 378.

Walton, R. E. (1985). From control to commitment in the wotkplace. Harvard Business Review, 63(2), 76-84.

Wheelan, S. (1990). Facilitating training groups. New York: Praeger.

Wheelan. S. (1994). Group process: A developmental perspective. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Wheelan, S., & Abraham, M. (1993). The concept of intergroup mirroring: Reality or illusion? Human Relations, 46(7), 803-825.

Wheelan, S., Burchill, C., & Tillin, F. (2003) The link between teamwork and patient outcomes in intensive care units. American Journal of Critical Care, 12, 527-534.

Wheelan, S., Davidson, B., & Tillin, F. (2003). Group development: Reality or Illusion? Small Group Research, 34, 223- 245.

Wheelan, S., & Hochberger, J. (1996). Validation studies of the Group Development Questionnaire. Small Group Research, 27(1), 143- 170.

Wheelan, S., & Krasick, C. (1993). The emergence, transmission, and acceptance of themes in a temporary organization. Group ana" Organisational Management, 18(2), 237-260.

Wheelan, S., & Lisk, A. (2000). Cohort group effectiveness and the educational achievement of adult undergraduate students. Small Group Research, 31(6), 724-738.

Wheelan, S., & McKeage, R. (1993). Developmental patterns in small and large groups. Small Group Research, 24(1), 60-83.

Wheelan, S., Murphy, D., Tsumura, E., & Fried-Kline, S. (1998). Member perceptions of internal group dynamics and productivity. Small Group Research, 29(3), 371-393.

Wheelan, S., & Tilin, F. (1999). The relationship between faculty group effectiveness and school productivity. Small Group Research, 30(1), 59-81.

Wyer, R. S. (1966). Effects of incentive to perform well, group attraction and group acceptance on conformity in a judgemental task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 21-26.

Zigarelli, M. A. (1996). An empirical test of conclusions from effective schools research. The Journal of Educational Research, 90, 103-110.

Zurcher, L. A. (1969). Stages of development in poverty program neighborhood committees. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 5, 223-251.

SUSAN A. WHEELAN

GDQ Associates

Provincetown, Massachusetts

JAN KESSELRING

Madison Local School District, Ohio

Address correspondence to Susan A. Wheelan, GDQ Associates, 16 Aunt Sukey Way, Province town, MA 02657. (E-mail: gdq@ gdqassoc.com)

SUSAN A. WHEELAN is president of GDQ Associates, Inc., Provincctown, Massachusetts. Her present interests include research and consultation with work groups. She has written numerous articles for publication. She has provided consultation to a wide variety of organizations and has led workshops and seminars on topics such as executive development, the role of the internal consultant, working in teams, and management skills. JAN KESSELRING is superintendent of Madison Local School District, Middletown, Ohio. She has been a presenter at numerous state and national conferences. She also has been influential in encouraging and training educational consultants and educational administrators statewide to work toward improving the effectiveness of school-based faculty groups to improve student learning.

Copyright HELDREF PUBLICATIONS Jul/Aug 2005

Source: Journal of Educational Research, The

More News in this Category