portfolio: collaborative team evaluation tool...

PORTFOLIO: Collaborative Team Evaluation

Tool (CTET)

http://www.weebly.com/weebly/main.php

COMMUNICATION

Priscilla

Joany

Annika

Naomi

Karen

http://www.weebly.com/weebly/main.php

1

Contents

1 Purpose of Evaluation

2. Qualitative appraisal of the differences between the 2 scores on the

1 CTET using literature as evidence.

4. A critique of the CTET and it’s relevance for ECI teams in South Africa

6 Appendices - CTET TOOLS

8 Scoring Tools

11 Click up Google tool used for reflection and its analysis

13 References

i Portfolios: Documenting a journey

Introduction

ECI theory and principles have been in literature for decades yet in practice few of the ECI

principles are administered in the South African public and private health care contexts.

When faced with such a concerning phenomenon it is important to reflect why this is the

case (Rix & Paige Smith, 2011). A tool such as the Collaborative Team Evaluation Tool

(CTET ) tool would be useful in facilitating such reflection within transdisciplinary teams to

enhance the formation and improvement of teams working in the health as well as

educational context in SA.

In order to develop an effective team, the team need to establish collaborative missions

and mutual goals (Briggs, 1997). Teams can only be said to effective if the effectiveness of

the team can be measured. Thus, continuous evaluation of the current team functioning

can assist in identifying new strategies to improve team functioning. Evaluation tools such

as the CTET tool allows teams to identify strong as well as challenging factors that are

influencing not only team dynamics but also the teams ability to meet the goals devised by

the team (Briggs, 1997; Borden, 1999).

2 Portfolios: Documenting a journey

Qualitatively appraise the difference between the 2 scores. (Onsite and Skype)

The Collaborative Team Evaluation Tool (CTET) is a relevant tool to use in team

collaboration as it provides the opportunity for the team to reflect on their team’s

collaboration. Considering that collaborative teamwork is a dynamic process it is

essential that the team should adjust according to the member’s current needs

(Johnson, Ruiz, LaMontagne & George, 1998). It is therefore essential that the team

evaluate their collaborative status to ensure that they are flexible to the uniqueness

of dynamic processes within the team, while achieving the mutual goals (Rainforth,

York & McDonald, 1992). The CTET tool provides the team with the opportunity

where feelings of anxiety, conflict and exclusion could be dealt with (Rainforth et al.,

1992) in a constructive way so that improvement could be made for future effective

team collaboration.

Reflecting on the then and now CTET tool, there has been a shift between the two

tools administered. What is interesting when looking at the respective CTET scores,

the team remained constant or a slight increase in the areas of team goals, decision

making and team processes and has decreased functioning in terms of

communication, problem solving and leadership. This in a sense is contradicting as

the tool should have highlighted the growth within our team for the last two

quarters.

2 ECI 872: Collaborative Problem Solving in Early Childhood Intervention

The question arises why the second CTET evaluation scores were lower? After close

analysis’s to identify possible reasons for the difference no clear links could be found.

The following plausible explanation might have contributed to the change in the

results.

A factor that could have affected the scoring was the fact that the first CTET was

conducted during onsite week. The team was together when completing the tool. The

time the team had to complete the tool was limited. The team was provided with a

certain amount of time to complete the tool and discuss the results. A change in the

conditions of test construction such as time may impact on the team member’s

abilities to comprehend the questions and could have reflected poorly on the answers

(McMillan & Schumacher 2010). The second time the members completed the tool at

home, on their own time.

Team members might have provided more honesty in their answering of the

questions as they felt secure under the protection of increased sense of “anonymity”

(McMillan & Schumacher, 2010). The longer time frame could have allow members to

comprehend the questions at own leisure and critically reflect on the question before

answering. The more critical reflection could contribute to the members providing

lower scores. Another factor to consider is that team members might not have

answered the questions as truthfully, due to us providing favourable answers to the

rest of the team, to view ourselves and team functioning in a positive light (McMillan

& Schumacher, 2010).

The team member’s motivation and behaviour could have been driven at that specific

time to create “positive self-presentation, social desirability, or a belief that certain

responses are expected, which may affect the results” (McMillan & Schumacher,

2010, p. 114).


When interpreting the comparisons decision making and team goal scores have

increased slightly indicating that the team feel that these processes are managed

the same as was previously done. However when considering areas of development

that have not remained the same, those that changed significantly were leadership

and communication. When considering leadership, the process of the MECI

programme allows each member to undertake the role of leader which could thus

relate to the variability in the scores as the leader does not remain constant

(McMillan & Schumacher, 2010). However this is an area that needs to be focused

on as a strong leader assist in guiding the team, maintain cohesiveness and

managing conflict (Briggs, 1997).

There has been a shift between the two tools administered in the manner work is

delegated to team members, with members working to their strengths. This

indicates that the team is functioning at its peak as "the highest level of

achievement is attained when the whole team is committed to the task, and full use

is made of each members talents" (Bruder, 1997, p. 66). Tasks have been assigned

according to individual team member's talents and team members are committed

to completing their respective tasks excellently. The entire team then is able to

input into the proposed drafts of each section on click-up indicating equal decision

making skills. This facilitates a group climate of all team members feeling valued in

their contribution to the final product in meeting the team's shared goals (Briggs,

1997).


Small changes occurred in the area of team process which resulted from members not

feeling that all members were clear about their roles within the team. Again, this could

be attributed to the change in expectations of the last assignment as it was not

consistent with the previous assignments in which two people were facilitating the

assignment. This is an area of focus for the team to improve functioning. Similarly,

problem solving changes resulted in members not agreeing that enough time was

spent on brainstorming sessions to generate ideas. As highlighted by Briggs (1997)

teams need to invest time in meetings to continually identify ideas or changes that

need to take place.

Communication strategies that changed were members feeling that active listening

was not occuring when discussions were held and that not all members and ideas

were valued during discussions. A score of 12 on the CTET according to the scoring

indicates mild difficulty in the area. This is an area that significant effort must be

invested in as team members who feel they are not being heard or their opinions are

not valued will begin to develop feelings of being unimportant or unappreciated

(Briggs, 1998). Communication within a team is vital to the teams functioning (Briggs,

1997; Straka & Bricker, 1996) therefore this should be monitored and included in

team building activities.

Clearly, this module of reflection could have caused an increase in our knowledge and

awareness of the importance of reflecting honestly. We as individuals and team have

certainly grown in respect of critical reflection and our perception might have changed

about our performance level, also known as maturation which impacts the validity of

the CTET tool scores (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010). This was also the aim of this

module and the improvement of our reflection can be measured in the fact that the

scores were lower, indicating a more critical level of reflecting. The team had a

different mindset that influenced our method to reflect on our actions, knowledge,

performance due to a new awareness of our sense of reality (Cunliffe, 2004).


Garland and Frank (1997) agrees that even when individuals are driven, the context

of the workplace itself could be a barrier to delivering interdisciplinary or leave alone

family-centered and transdisciplinary teamwork. The 3 of our 5 team different team

members experienced challenges towards implementing ECI purposes in our current

workplaces as the systems there just did not allow change. This causes extra stress

upon an already stressful final MECI year which could have also influenced our lower

scores on the second CTET as perseverance becomes a challenge (Garland & Frank,

1997).

Identifying weaknesses in team operations through this tool, continuing professional

development could be embarked upon to determine how to improve team functioning

(Rix & Paige Smith, 2011). Furthermore this tool is administered with the whole team,

allowing for collaborative reflection as various team members may have different

perceptions which need to be explored (Wesley & Buysse, 2001). It is only through

collaborative reflective inquiry that we may see transformation in ECI services in SA

(Wesley & Buysse, 2001)


“People are a common source of error” (Brink, 2006, p. 159). The reliability of the

test is influenced by our emotional state when answering the questions (McMillan

& Schumacher, 2010). Perhaps our mood, motivation and reaction to the items

are different than completion the first time (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010). The

reliability of the result are subjective to the physical, emotional and psychological

well-being of the participant (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010). There are a strong

believe in the group, that the team has grown since the completion of the first

CTET, and that this factor could provide a definite valid explanation to the change

of the two different scores.

Straka and Bricker (1996) highlight that a principle critical to the success of team

efforts is the willingness of the team to evaluate their performance on an ongoing

basis. Similarly the nature of the evaluation must be tailored to meet the unique

characteristics of the identified team. Thus although the CTET highlights important

aspects within any team it is not specifically created to assess this within the

framework of ECI. Although the CTET provides valuable information regarding the

collaborative abilities and difficulties, an evaluation tool developed to specifically

address issues of teams related to early childhood intervention might be more

applicable. This could include areas such as the teams ability to include and work

with the family (Orelove & Sobsey, 1996). Similarly, when working with families in

ECI, and especially in South Africa where there are numerous cultures coming into

play, the team’s ability to consider and effectively display skills of cultural

competence are pivotal thus should be an area that is assessed (Briggs, 1998).


The relevance of the CTET tool

for ECI in South Africa.

In SA community level services are a prevalent method of services being

established due to rural context and poor accessibility of many health services.

Community based services (CBR) forms part of SA primary health care (PHC)

strategy; however lack of effective implementation of these services (Philpott,

2006; Rule, Lorenzo & Wolmarans, 2006). Philpott (2006), describe that the

issues are related to poor coordination and communication between the different

intersectoral collaborators which impacts on the quality of these services, directly

affecting children with disabilities and their families.

The CBR stakeholders consist of the Department of Health (DoH) and various

other non-governmental organisations (NGO’s) who work together in terms of a

partnership to provide services to our communities (Philpott, 2006). Because of

the poor collaboration between the various sectors (DoH, NGO’s, CBR and PCH)

these services are incomprehensive, due to poor monitoring they unsustainable,

and lack of commitment and responsibility to get the work done resulting in poor

implementation of policies (Briggs, 1997, Philpott, 2006, Rule et al., 2006).


Thus it is clear that these sectors should focus on improving their functioning as a

team. “Successful interagency collaborations are developmental in nature and

require preplanning and continued hard work to be successful” (Johnson et al.,

1997 ci Johnson, Ruiz, LaMontagne & George, 1998, p. 13). The CTET tool could

be valuable for these sectors to use to identify the weaknesses in their

functioning. It is only once these weaknesses are recognized that specific

strategies can be implemented to rectify their functioning to a level of adequacy

(Briggs, 1997). The CTET tool will allow the sectors to problem solve, clarify goals

and monitor functioning on a continuous basis.

Within the South African context, and with more emphasis placed on

collaboration, the CTET can be utilized to initially establish a baseline for a team

that has recently initiated multidisciplinary services. This will allow the team to

highlight what needs to be accomplished for the team to function effectively

(Garland & Frank, 1997). As professionals within the South African context still

function on a unidisciplinary or multidisciplinary level (Briggs, 1997), the CTET

could facilitate deeper level of team functioning because it evaluates the

participation of all members. This would therefore also facilitate family-centered

intervention by including the families in ECI teams and thus will encourage open

communication whereas families in ECI within the South African context have

been excluded from intervention (Harty, Joseph, Wilder & Rajaram, 2007). As

teams functioning may fluctuate between the stages of team development

(Briggs, 1997), the CTET is useful in evaluating team functioning after a new

incident occur. This has relevance within the South African context as the impact

that HIV has on families causes a change in the families' constructs, for e.g. when

the mother passes away and the children are fostered by the grandparents

(UNICEF, 2007; Hall, Woolard, Lake & Smith, 2012). The CTET should therefore

be helpful in the assessment of team functioning after or during stages of

storming (Briggs, 1997).


Conclusion

We can therefore conclude that the CTET tool is relevant to Transdisciplinary

teams in South Africa. It is a good measurement tool that allows for quantitative

and qualitative assessment. Moreover it does not just identify the strengths and

weaknesses of the teams, it also provides suggestions for improvement of team

functioning to address the identified weaknesses (Reference to be added). It is

only through addressing these weaknesses that teams grow and ultimately

reach the set goals.

portfolio: collaborative team evaluation tool...

Documents