�ݺ�ߣ

Editor's Notes

1. This project is being submitted to Dr. Thai on October 23, 2014 in order to fulfill the partial requirements for Group Dynamics.
2. -For my project, I chose to observe an athletic team. - -The reason I chose to observe a sports team is because being a previous team member, I wanted to better understand the implications of interpersonal relationships and group cohesion in team performance. -There is great importance in understanding how relationships contribute to efficiency, especially to individuals involved in sports management, coaching, and athletes that are determined to win.
3. This is the input process output model of team performance (Forsyth, 2013, 408)
4. -The primary method I used to conduct this study includes observation. I chose observation because it was the most effective way to analyze the behavior of the team, an essential part to this study. -Overt observation is “openly watching and recording information with no attempt to conceal one’s research purposes.” I observed two team practices, which took place at the CBU Pool. -Participant observation entails “watching and recording group activities as a member of the group or participation in the social processes.” I was able to participate in Canadian Thanksgiving, a team event that is hosted by two of the Canadians on the team. -I hypothesized that the intrapersonal relationships of the team out of the water are correlated to the team’s overall performance -Because of limited time, some of my findings by this method may be anomalies or may not fully describe this team’s true dynamics
5. Canadian Thanksgiving- read -strong association between the constructs of effective intrateam communication and athletic satisfaction (Sullivan and Gee, 2007, 113)
6. Practices passing: the girls that seemed to be close at the team event were in the same passing groups Instruction by older, more experienced players to younger, inexperienced players on the team -All the athletes described providing positive and/or technical feedback to regulate teammates’ emotions, particularly following a poor shot (Tamminen et al, 2013, 742) -instruction included respectful and constructive feedback Encouragement was apparent, especially during the scrimmage portion of the practices (ie when someone scored) Leadership was also another obvious trademark on the team, the captains leading the team warm ups Coaches: Critiquing everyone, not just certain people; played important part in the mood of the team -Bandura’s (1997) chapter on athletic functioning, this finding reiterates the need for coaches to be aware of, and have the ability to positively influence, the different types of efficacy that can exert influence on a team’s performance: preparatory efficacy, performance efficacy, and regulatory efficacy -The authors speculate that the mechanism driving this relationship may be effective communication between the coach and player. In other words, athletes who receive frequent, clear, and positive instructions/guidance with respect to their competitive responsibilities are more likely to perceive their athletic experiences as satisfying (Sullivan and Gee, 2007, 108). -supportive context and effective leadership (Forsyth, 2013, 402)
7. -The Skip commented that the team’s success was related to their strong interpersonal skills (e.g., soft skills): “it was great. in terms of the soft skills the team did so much, and I wasn’t expecting that.” The Second said “it’s team dynamics that make a difference . a good team will have a connection and have good on-ice dynamics and you’ll see the difference in the way people react with each other,” suggesting that the team’s positive dynamics were reflected in interpersonal emotion regulation during competition ((Tamminen et al, 2013, 744) -Forsyth 2013 states that “even though team members need not be close friends, teams with strong social bonds among members outperform less socially cohesive teams” (423). -It is clear that freshman had a misalignment with her role fit, which is the “degree of congruence between the demands of a specific role and the attitudes, values, skills, and other characteristics of the individual who occupies the role” (Forsyth, 2013, 184).
8. Merritt and Clausett 2014 conducted a quantitative study that dealt with the scores of the games -They admitted that from player-level characteristics would provide a coherent understanding of how individuals cooperate to produce a team and how teams compete to produce dynamics (14) Combination of this observational study and Merritt and Clausett 2014 would create more conclusive results from player-level characteristics to provide a coherent understanding of how individuals cooperate to produce a team and how teams compete to produce dynamics (14)