Team building activities in dance and discoveries from reflective essays

Authors

Stephanie J. HanrahanSchool of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences and School of PsychologyThe University of Queensland

Rachel A. PedroCreative Industries Faculty – DanceQueensland University of Technology

Setting the scene:Team building research

• Team cohesion is required for good performance in sport (Vealey, 2007) and dance (Tremayne & Ballinger, 2008)

• Some dance students are engaged in dance classes because of wanting to belong to a group and be part of the context (Klockare, Gustafsson, & Nordin-Bates, 2011)

• Peer interaction is an essential aspect of the psychosocial development of dance students

• Working in small groups increases students’ autonomy and responsibility for learning (Buckroyd, 2000)

Team building research (cont.)

• Group cohesion– Task cohesion - how well the group works or performs together– Social cohesion - social wellness of dancers is influenced by their

social context and their network of social support (Cardinal, 2014)

– Dance teachers who provide team-building activities may help dancers enhance their social wellness (Cardinal, 2014)

• Group integration - individuals’ perceptions of the closeness, similarity, and bonding within the group as a whole

• Individual attractions to the group - each individual’s personal attraction to the group and how much they want to remain a part of the group

(Eys, Burke, Dennis, & Evans, 2015)

No existing team building research in dance

• Team cohesion important in dance• Unable to find any studies that investigated

the implementation of an intervention with the specific goal of enhancing team cohesion in dance

• Although this study does not contain a control group, it may be a valuable first step in determining if team building activities are effective within a university dance class.

Purpose

To determine if using team building activities within a university Latin dance course enhances cohesion.

Participants

• Students enrolled in a university Latin dance course• All 30 students enrolled agreed to participate:– 28 female, 2 male– Aged 18 to 25– The majority (N = 24) of the students were Caucasian,

with 5 Asian students and 1 Hispanic student – Only 3 students were not ‘Dance’ or ‘Dance Studies’

majors – All had previous dance experience, many in more than

one style or genre

The Course – Latin Dance Party• Bossa nova, salsa rueda, and merengue• Everyone was required to learn leading and

following roles to an equal extent• Students were to dance with everyone in the

class• Dance partners were changed on a frequent

basis (i.e., at least every song)

Measures

Group Environment Questionnaire

Evaluation Questionnaire

Reflective Essays

Group Environment Questionnaire(GEQ)

Assesses group cohesiongroup-integration – task (GIT)group integration – social (GIS)individual attractions to group – task (IAGT)individual attractions to group – social (IAGS)

“team” was replaced with “class”two items from the original GEQ were omitted due to irrelevance to the dance class environment

(Carron, Widmeyer, & Brawley, 1985)

Evaluation Questionnaire

• Four questions (7-point Likert scale) ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”– “I liked the team-building activities” – “The team-building activities enhanced my experience of rueda” – “The team-building activities helped to bond class members” – “I feel it is valuable for team-building activities to be included in

this unit in the future” • Free-response questions

– what they liked and didn’t like about the activities– what effect, if any, the team-building activities had on their

experiences of rueda and their relationships with the other people in the class

– any suggestions for improving the use of team-building activities

Reflective Essays

• 2000-word reflective essay• 40% of the course assessment• Students made notes after each class about their learning

experiences. Questions to guide their reflections (e.g., What challenges did I face in this class? How did I respond to these challenges?)

• From their notes students then wrote a reflective essay using a narrative style

• No specific mention of team building activities, team cohesion, or team bonding in the instructions regarding the reflective essays

Procedure

• Classes twice per week for 1.5 hours for 10 weeks = 20 classes• Class 4: Demographics Questionnaire and GEQ• Class 9: GEQ • Classes 10-14: Team building activities took up roughly the

first 30-40 minutes of each class• Classes 15 and 20: GEQ• Class 16: Evaluation Questionnaire• Students used codes instead of their names - allowing

questionnaires from the same students over time to be matched up while retaining anonymity

• Reflective essays submitted 2 weeks after the last class

Examples of the team building activities

Machine: Groups of 10-15 - One person begins with a repetitive physical movement. The next person creates a new movement that in some way connects to the other person’s movement. Continue until the “machine” contains the entire group.

Electric fence: Groups of 7-15 - A long string is held up (by two people) at the height of the armpit of the shortest person in the group. Everyone in the group has to get over the string without touching it and without using furniture. If anyone touches the string, the entire group has to start from the beginning.

(Based on games from Hanrahan and Carlson (2000))

Analyses

• T-tests were calculated to determine if there were differences across time in the four GEQ subscales

• Qualitative data– key meaning units identified– one of the researchers used substantive coding, with category

labels closely dependent on the data process, resulting in numerous categories for small units of text

– constant comparison technique then used by the other researcher to create themes and then higher order themes

– during this process the two researchers conferred - the few disagreements were resolved by altering the wording in the naming of the theme or agreeing to create a new theme

Group Environment Questionnaire(GEQ)

• There were no significant differences across time in social cohesion

• Group integration task, however, was significantly higher at times 3 and 4 compared to time 1 (team building happened between times 2 and 3)

Evaluation Questionnaire ResultsQuestion Min Max Mean SD____________________________________________________________________I liked the team-building activities. 2.0 7.0 5.17 1.21 The team-building activities enhanced my experience of rueda. 1.0 7.0 4.43 1.45 The team-building activities helped to bond the classmembers. 3.0 7.0 5.73 1.01

I feel it is valuable for team-building activities to beincluded in this unit in the future. 2.0 7.0 5.03 1.47____________________________________________________________________

(7-point scale)

They liked that the activities:

• were social (19 students)• were fun, joyful, or exciting (17 students)• fixed perceived divides in the class, enabled the class to

work together without feeling awkward, and helped them feel more comfortable when dancing with each other (7 students)

• were a nice break from the dance component of class (6 students)

• were different to team-building activities they had done in the past, provided a good warm-up, were good for helping you think creatively

They disliked:

• how much time the activities took from dancing in the classes in which they were held (14 students)

• aspects of the content of the activities (7 students)• that the games were childish (3 students) • having to work with people they didn’t know or having to

work with others at all (3 students) • some indicated there was nothing to dislike (3 students)• not being able to participate due to injury, the activities

being nothing new, the activities being redundant because the class gets to know each other through dancing

Perceptions of the effects of the team-building activities specifically on rueda:

• 15 indicated they felt more comfortable or less awkward when touching others or swapping partners

• 8 thought that getting to know others through the team-building activities was valuable for rueda

• 7 believed the activities had no effect on rueda• 2 stated the activities helped the students trust each other,

which was beneficial for rueda• 2 felt the activities made rueda more enjoyable• 1 student each commented that the activities improving rueda

performance, allowed them to be more open to trying new things, and hindered learning because there was less time for dancing

Perceptions of the effects of the team-building activities on their relationship with others in the class:

• 19 focused on the class being closer, more sociable, or friendlier

• 11 believed the activities made them more comfortable with others or helped them overcome shyness

• 6 felt the activities had no effect on their relationships with others

• 3 mentioned that the activities allowed them to have fun with each other

Suggestions about improving the team-building activities:

• 13 comments about the timing of the activities within the course– 6 felt less time should be spend in any one class on team-building– 7 suggested that activities either be moved to the beginning of the semester or

spread evenly throughout the semester

• 3 felt there should have been fewer activities

• 7 commented about the content of the activities – creating new games– making the activities more challenging– focusing on problem solving and trust exercises– focusing on getting-to-know-you activities– having less focus on getting-to-know-you activities

• About half of the students indicated that they had no suggestions for improvements.

Reflective Essay

• The meaning units from the reflective essays were split into two topics– the effects of the team-building exercises on

bonding and the students’ dance skills– the effects of the overall course on bonding and

students’ dance skills

Effects of team-building exercises:

• improved interpersonal skills• improved dance skills• affected class environment (positively)• improved mental/personal skills• negative aspects• made it less awkward• generally beneficial• good tool for the future

Effects of the overall course:

• responsibility/commitment to others• developed mental/social skills• connecting/relating with others • issues related to partner dancing (partner

dancing uncomfortable but can overcome/swapping partners)

Why a change?

• Became more cognisant about their group interactions

• Self-awareness improved

So what?

First study to investigate the implementation of an intervention with the specific goal of enhancing team cohesion in dance

Able to demonstrate that team building activities within the course Latin Dance Party enhanced task cohesion

A valuable first step in demonstrating that team building activities frequently used within the sporting environment are effective within a university dance class

Future considerations

• Spread the activities across the semester so that limited time is spent in any one class on team-building activities, allowing adequate time for dancing.

• Focus on creative and physically challenging team-building exercises.

Conclusion

Implementing team building activities within a university Latin dance course enhances task cohesion.

References• Buckroyd, J. (2000). The student dancer: Emotional aspects of the teaching and learning of dance. London: Dance Books.• Cardinal, M. K. (2014). SPICE2S: Wellness dimensions applied to dance with advice for teachers. Journal of Physical Education,

Recreation & Dance, 85(3), 3-7.• Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., & Brawley, L. R. (1985). The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: The

Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 244-266.• Cote, J., Salmela, J., Baria, A., & Russel, S. J. (1993). Organising and interpreting unstructured qualitative data. The Sport Psychologist, 7,

127-137.• Doughty, S., & Stevens, J. (2002). Seeing myself dance: Video and reflective learning in dance technique.‘Finding the balance a

conference on Dance in FE and HE in the 21st Century, Liverpool John Moore’s University. • Eys, M. A., Burke, S. M., Dennis, P., & Evans, B. (2015). The sport team as an effective group. In J. M. Williams & V. Krane (Eds.) Applied

sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (7th ed., pp. 124-139). New York, NY: McGraw Hill Education.• Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research. Los Angeles and London: SAGE Publications. • Hanrahan, S.J., & Carlson, T.B. (2000). GameSkills: A fun approach to learning sport skills. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.• Jones, E.L., & Ryan, M.E. (2015). The dancer as reflective practitioner. In M.e. Ryan (Ed.), Teaching reflective learning in higher

education: A systematic approach using pedagogic patterns (pp. 51-64). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.• Klockare, E., Gustafsson, H., & Nordin-Bates, S. M. (2011). An interpretive phenomenological analysis of how professional dance

teachers implement psychological skills training in practice. Research in Dance Education, 12, 277-293. doi: 10.1080/14647893.2011.614332

• Payne, S. (2007). Grounded theory. In E. Lyons & A. Coyle (Eds.) Analysing qualitative data in psychology (pp. 65-86). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

• Ryan, M. (2012). Conceptualising and teaching discursive and performative reflection in higher education. Studies in Continuing Education. 34(2), 207-223. doi: 10.1080/0158037X.2011.611799

• Ryan, M. (2014). Reflective practice in the arts. In G. Barton (Ed.) Literacy in the arts: Retheorising learning and teaching (pp. 77-90). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

• Tremayne, P. & Ballinger, D. A. (2008). Performance enhancement for ballroom dancers: Psychological perspectives. The Sport Psychologist, 22, 90-108.

• Vealey, R. S. (2007). Mental skills training in sport. In G. Tenenbaum & R.c. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (3rd ed., pp. 287-309). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.