Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PORTFOLIO: Collaborative Team Evaluation
Tool (CTET)
http://www.weebly.com/weebly/main.php
COMMUNICATION
Priscilla
Joany
Annika
Naomi
Karen
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).
2 Portfolios: Documenting a journey
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).
4 ECI 872: Collaborative Problem Solving in Early Childhood Intervention
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).
2 Portfolios: Documenting a journey
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)
6 ECI 872: Collaborative Problem Solving in Early Childhood Intervention
“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).
2 Portfolios: Documenting a journey
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).
8 ECI 872: Collaborative Problem Solving in Early Childhood Intervention
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).
2 Portfolios: Documenting a journey
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.