Eij Mrs 4042

ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Online Open Access publishing platform for Management Research

Copyright by the authors - Licensee IPA- Under Creative Commons license 3.0

Research Article ISSN 2229 3795

ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH 516
Volume 4 Issue 3, 2014
An analysis of teachers perceptions towards teamwork
Mohamad Johdi Salleh, Bakare Kazeem Kayode

Institute of Education, International Islamic University Malaysia
johdisalleh@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
The study aims to examine the teachers perceptions and the underlying dimensions of their
responses towards the concept of teamwork. The study involved 202 teachers of primary and
secondary schools in the district of Kuantan, Malaysia. They were different age, gender, level
of education, level of teaching, numbers of teaching years and marital status. The revised
Teamwork Skills Questionnaire (TSQ) by ONeil, Lee, Wang and Mulkey (1999) were
adapted by the researchers as the primary instrument of data collection. The study applied the
reliability and principal component analysis, with varimax rotation in order to produce the
simplest factor structure. The inter-item relationships were examined to establish the
reasonableness of the dimensional analysis. This study also applied Kaisers (1960) and
Guadagnoli and Velicers (1988) criterion for important factors, significance test on factor
loadings (Cliff and Hamburger, 1967), and, the interpretability of the extracted factors were
used to decide on the number of factors to be retained. The final five-factor structure obtained
from this investigation suggests that the TSQ is a multidimensional scale looking into various
dimensions of perceptions towards teamwork. This paper further discuss on these dimensions
in terms of the degree to which they reflect the emerged themes of perceiving teamwork. The
use of principal component analysis in analyzing the responses gathered from the TSQ has
helped to identify the emerging of two new themes in addition to the three initial themes. The
findings are beneficial to understand and determine the success or failure of the practice of
teamwork in the educational institutions especially the school. It will further aid teachers,
educators, administrators, and professional development coordinators to adequately prepare,
train, and support teachers so that they may become effective members of the team.
Keywords: Teachers Perceptions Teamwork Skills
1. Introduction
The success of school vision, mission, strategies and reforms depend much on the
effectiveness of teachers team. These teams rely on the creativity and skills of teachers who
willingly contribute their energy and loyalty through collective efforts and teamwork process.
They may serve to counter effects the conventional institutional structures and bureaucratic
management thinking that assure operational stability and predictability, as well as encourage
change initiatives and synergies that strengthen performance. The organizational benefits of
teams include increased workplace productivity, improvements to service quality, a reduced
management structure, lower level of absenteeism, and reduced employee turnover.
2. Literature review



517
A team may be viewed as a group of individuals who work interdependently to solve
problems or accomplish task (Gibson and Kirkman, 1999; Manz and Sims, 1993). Teamwork
on the other hand, is what a team does when it is behaving as a team (McIntyre and Salas,
1995, p. 23). The popularity of team and teamwork in organizations has increased
dramatically over the past two decades (Apllebaum and Blatt, 1994; Taninecz, 1997).
Teamwork structures in schools and other organizations have become progressively more
attractive because teamwork is frequently considered as the best way to deliver superior
performance (Henkin and Wanat, 1994; Katzenbach and Smith, 1993).
In schools, teacher teams may play the function of strengthening the schools. They may serve
to counter effects the conventional institutional structures and bureaucratic management
thinking that assure operational stability and predictability, but discourage change initiatives
and synergies that strengthen performance. Many researchers such as Gladstein (1984);
Guzzo and Dickson, (1996); and Katzenbach and Smith (1993) suggested that among the
organizational benefits of teams include increased workplace productivity, improvements to
service quality, a reduced management structure, lower level of absenteeism, and reduced
employee turnover.
Teams populated by interconnected, trusting and committed teachers involved in cooperative
decision making can enable changes that enhance the development of professionals and
improvement of student outcomes. At the same time, teams provide the social support and
intrinsic organizational rewards that encourage a more collectivistic culture and reinforce the
desire to engage, and continue membership in the organization (Dee and Henkin, 2001;
Harris and Sherblom, 1999; Ko, 1996; Murphy, 1991; Neher, 1997; Pounder, 1999).
Nevertheless, a team is not simply a group of people who belong to the same group or who
are co-acting in the same workplace. In business organizations for example, Tarricone and
Luca (2002) were of the opinion that collaborating in teams requires much more than
traditional business skills. They noted that skills such as problem solving, communication,
collaboration, interpersonal skills, social skills, and time management are actively being
targeted by prospective employers as essential requirements for employability. They also
highlighted that employers consistently mention collaboration and teamwork as being a
critical skill essential in almost all working environments.
In teams, members must coordinate their decisions and activities by sharing information and
resources to attain shared goals (Dickinson and McIntyre, 1997). The success of a team
depends largely on the effectiveness of skill-dependent component processes of teamwork.
Researches on teams and teamwork in schools include a few studies, focused on teamwork
skills that influence how effective an individual member may be as part of a team. The model
of teamwork used in this study considers the team skills of coordination, decision making,
adaptability, communication, interpersonal skills and leadership.
3. Statement of problem
Team and teamwork are no more strangers to the corporate world. They have long been used
by business organizations when workers within these organizations have traditionally worked
in teams for some projects. However, the increase of work teams and the importance of
teamwork skills have increased dramatically over the last two decades (Apllebaum and Blatt,
1994; Taninecz, 1997). Several studies indicate that more than 80% of organizations employ
multiple types of workplace teams (Cohen and Bailey, 1997; Sunstrom, 1999).


518
In the case of educational settings, the success of school reform depends, in part, on the
effectiveness of teacher teams viewed as fundamental building blocks of locally-managed
schools (Berman, 2001; Crow and Pounder, 2000). These teams rely on the creativity and
skills of teachers who willingly contribute their energy and loyalty through collective efforts
and teamwork process (Boman and Deal, 1994; Duignan and Macpherson, 1993; Glickman,
1993; Henkin et al., 2000; Pounder, 1998).
Today, in the context of Malaysian educational system, teamwork may have been viewed as a
newly introduced concept of working especially in public school settings. Teachers may not
be able to obviously notice the existence of this concept when performing their daily tasks at
school regardless of whether it has been taken place in teacher-teacher, teacher-parents or
teacher-students relationships. This may be as a result of misconception, misunderstanding or
lack of knowledge about what teamwork is all about. Hence, what these teachers understand
as the concept of teamwork as observed through the practice in their day-to-day job at
schools, leads us to the investigations of the research questions of this study. This paper also
looked into the underlying factors that may affect their views and understanding on working
in teams.
2.1 Research objectives
1. The objectives of this study are:
2. To explore the perceptions of teachers towards teamwork.
3. To investigate the latent factors influencing variability of the teachers responses,
through the use of principal component analysis.
2.2 Research questions
This study aims to seek answer for the following questions:
What do teachers perceive teamwork as being practiced in their day to-day job at school?
What are the underlying factors that influence their perceptions?
3.1 Research design
3.1.1 Sample and site
This study adopted a quantitative method in both data and data analysis processes. The
population of this study consisted teachers from six government schools (three primary and
three secondary) in the district of Kuantan, Pahang. The sample used for this study is the
purposeful sampling. The researcher opted for this method of sampling with the belief that
the participants of the sample are able to provide rich, reliable and valid information for the
purpose of this study. There were 305 sets of questionnaires distributed to the teachers from
six randomly selected government schools. Out of 305 sets of questionnaire distributed, only
226 responded (74.1%) but only 202 samples were taken for analysis (n = 202) due to the
missing of important data in the balance of 24 samples. The sample size was deemed
adequate for the dimensional analysis since the number of observation per item was 5:1.
Table 1 shows the analysis of the demographic data of the samples.



519
Table 1: Analysis of demographic data
Demographic Information No. of Samples %

1. Age 21 30 years
31 40 years
41 50 years
51 60 years
Unknown

51
83
49
11
8

25.24
41.09
24.26
5.45
3.96
2. Gender Male
Female
Unknown

27
169
6

13.37
83.66
2.97
3. Education Level Certificate
Diploma
Bachelor Degree
Master Degree
Unknown

19
33
128
17
5

9.41
16.34
63.37
8.42
2.48

4. Level of Teaching Primary
Secondary
Unknown

85
114
3

42.08
56.44
1.49
5. Years of Service 0 10 years
11 20 years
21 30 years
31 40 years
Unknown

68
71
19
1
43

33.66
35.15
9.41
0.50
21.29
6. Marital Status Single
Married
Unknown

38
161
3

18.81
79.70
1.49
3.2 Access and permission
A written letter from Institute of Education, International Islamic University Malaysia was
sent together with the questionnaires to each school either to the Principals or the Assistant
Principals informing the purpose of this study and also requesting for cooperation and
support to be provided by the schools.
3.3 Instruments
In relation to the present study, the revised Teamwork Skills Questionnaire (TSQ) by ONeil,
Lee, Wang and Mulkey (1999) were adapted by the researchers as the primary instrument of
interest. The age, gender, level of education, level of teaching, numbers of teaching years and
marital status of participants were assessed as part of the demographic questionnaire.
The original version of this measure consisted of 52 items concerning the way the
respondents think or feel, each with a 4-point Likert response scale of Almost Never (1),
Sometimes (2), Often (3), and Almost Always (4). However, in this study, the researchers only
adapted the revised version consisting of 36 regroup items. The researcher also amended the
response scale to Strongly Disagree (1), Disagree (2), Agree (3), and Strongly Agree (4) in
measuring the respondents perceptions on teamwork. The researchers were of the opinion
that the 4-point Likert scale should be maintained due to the purpose of calling for a firm
decision by the respondents. The 36 items were divided into six clusters within which they


520
share one common teachers perception. The first 5 items were grouped under the
Coordination subscale, 6 items under the Decision Making Subscale, 7 items under the
Leadership subscale, 6 items under the Interpersonal Skills subscale, 5 items under the
Adaptability subscale and the last seven 7 items under the Communication subscale.
The researchers also translated the original version of English Language into Malay
Language to provide assistance to teachers who might face difficulties in understanding the
foreign language. Thus, the questionnaires were printed in dual languages.
3.4 Data collection
The questionnaires were distributed to the teachers who voluntarily participated in the study.
The completed questionnaires were then collected by the researchers either from the
Principals or the Assistant Principals.
4.1 Data analysis
To examine the teachers perceptions and the underlying dimensions of their responses, the
study applied the reliability and principal component analysis, subjected to varimax rotation
using the SPSS version 17 in order to produce the simplest factor structure. The inter-item
relationships were firstly examined to establish the reasonableness of the dimensional
analysis. Then, factors were derived and followed by the assessment of overall fit of the
resulting solution. In addition, Kaisers (1960) criterion for important factors, significance
test on factor loadings (Cliff and Hamburger, 1967), and the interpretability of the extracted
factors were used to decide on the number of factors to be retained. This study also applied
Guadagnoli and Velicers (1988) principles, which are (1) the minimum number of items per
factor was four and (2) factors loaded with fewer than four items were not retained.
4.2 Findings of the study
Table 2 summarizes the result of the descriptive analysis and item-total correlations on the
teachers responses. The data indicate that the means and standard deviations ranged from
2.94 (Item 25) to 3.48 (Item 21), and .49 (Item 8) to .65 (Item 13) respectively. The mean
scores were located within the expected range; none of the items included a mean score of
zero, at 95% confidence level. However, the readings for standard deviations of not
exceeding 1.00 are as a result of the application of a 4-point Likert scale for the principal
component analysis.
All the 36 variables having the total-item correlation from moderate to high and hence, none
of the items were excluded from the factor analysis using the principal component analysis.
Furthermore, the correlation matrixes also showed a pattern of relationships among the 36
items with the degree of inter-item correlations were at least moderate. The inter-item
correlations suggested the existence of underlying factors affecting the variability of the
teachers responses in understanding the concept of teamwork. The examination of this
probability is analyzed in the next section.
4.3 The underlying dimensions of teachers perceptions
Table 2 shows the correlation matrix and the descriptive statistics. Based on the discussion on
the previous section, the inter-correlations among items supported the use of principal
component analysis. Specifically, the Bartlett Sphericity Test yielded statistically significant


521
inter-correlations, 2 (496) = 3862.18, p = .001, with an overall MSA of .93. The data
indicated that the individual MSA for each item ranged between .89 and .96 which exceeded
the acceptable level of .60. Thus, the inter-item correlations justify the use of the dimensional
analysis.
Table 2: Mean (Standard Deviation) and Item-Total Correlations of Teachers Perceptions
towards Teamwork (Max Score = 4)
Item Code M SD R

I allocate the task according to the each team members
abilities.
cood1 3.31 .54 .610
I help ensure the proper weigh of the workload. cood2 3.42 .53 .546
I do my part in a timely manner. cood3 3.27 .59 .618
I track other team members progress. cood4 3.21 .54 .592
I emphasize meeting of deadlines. cood5 3.34 .60 .581
I understand and contribute to the organizational goals. dm1 3.39 .54 .649
I know the process of making decision. dm2 3.27 .51 .549
I know how to weigh the relative importance among different
issues.
dm3 3.26 .49 .634
I prepare sufficiently to make decision. dm4 3.21 .59 .660
I solicit input for decision making from my team members. dm5 3.23 .63 .314
I am able to change decisions based upon new information. dm6 3.12 .56 .498
I lead when appropriate. lead1 3.20 .55 .563
I teach other team members. lead2 3.06 .65 .606
I serve as a role model in formal and informal interactions. lead3 3.03 .61 .664
I mobilize the group for high performance. lead4 3.12 .61 .679
I lead the team effectively. lead5 3.12 .61 .679
I demonstrate leadership and ensure team results. lead6 3.17 .56 .706
I try to bring out the best in others. lead7 3.29 .55 .638
I interact cooperatively with other team members. inter1 3.32 .54 .602
I conduct myself with courtesy. inter2 3.38 .54 .623
I respect the thoughts and opinions of others in the team. inter3 3.48 .53 .633
I treat others with courtesy. inter4 3.42 .54 .692
I accept individual differences among members. inter5 3.39 .54 .661
I treat all my team members as equals. inter6 3.43 .55 .605
I can identify potential problems readily. adapt1 2.94 .55 .440
I willingly contribute solutions to resolve problems. adapt2 3.07 .51 .548
I adapt readily to varying conditions ad demands. adapt3 3.10 .56 .463
I recognize conflict. adapt4 3.11 .52 .481
I identify need or requirements and develop quality/timely
solutions.
adapt5 3.15 .52 .530
I ensure the instructions are understood by all team members
prior to starting the task.
comm1 3.38 .52 .592
I ask for the instructions to be clarified when it appears not all
the team members understand the task.
comm2 3.41 .52 .585
I communicate in a manner to ensure mutual understanding. comm3 3.36 .49 .666
I seek and respond to feedback. comm4 3.38 .52 .636
I listen attentively. comm5 3.44 .52 .594


522
I clearly and accurately exchange information. comm6 3.37 .50 .667
I pay attention to what others are saying. comm7 3.45 .52 .622
Key: cood Coordination; dm Decision Making; lead - Leadership; inter
Interpersonal; adapt Adaptability; comm Communication.
Applying the varimax rotation of principal component analysis, only those factors with
eigenvalues greater than 1.0 were retained; this produced an initial 7-factor solution.
However, the sixth factor had only two items loading on it while the seventh factor had no
factor loading due to the fact that all factors were already loaded on the first six factors.
The principal component analysis was ran for the second time after eliminating Item 10
(Solicit input) and Item 11 (Change decision) which loaded on Factor 6. AS a result, a 6-
factor solution was then retained. Nevertheless, only two items loaded on Factor 6 and were
subsequently removed from the third running of the principal components analysis. The items
were Item 5 (Meet deadlines) and Item 26 (Contribute solutions) of the initial 36 items
measure. Hence, a 5-factor solution was used in the final factor structure. Most of the retained
32 items were substantially loaded on the first four factors with 7 items each. These items
were all interpretable. Items were assigned to factors based on the highest loadings (minimum
acceptable loading of .40), with one item assigned to more than one factors as their factor
loadings were almost equal across the two factors (i.e., secondary loading within 0.05 of
highest loading). This cross-loading was minimized by factor rotation.
Table 3: Five-factor matrix of varimax rotation for the teamwork skills questionnaire
Items Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Communality
Pay attention .797* .250 .054 .150 .180 .757
Clarify instructions .761* .124 .177 .119 .165 .667
Listen attentively .727* .280 .151 .127 .074 .651
Feedback .709* .246 .148 .243 .110 .656
Exchange information .655* .291 .124 .269 .207 .645
Instructions understood .649* .097 .254 .132 .276 .589
Mutual understanding .613* .312 .170 .244 .220 .609
Equal treatment .295 .739* .299 .028 -.044 .725
Accept differences .259 .738* .154 .087 .266 .714
Thoughts and Opinions .318 .715* .179 .040 .174 .676
Courtesy treatment .324 .687* .198 .127 .242 .690
Courtesy conduct .141 .655* .041 .247 .412 .681
Interact cooperatively .205 .558* .322 .013 .317 .558
Bring out the best .182 .504* .437 .185 .151 .535
High performance .215 .220 .771* .186 .106 .734
Lead effectively .183 .269 .721* .277 .046 .704
Teach members .105 .114 .673* .266 .234 .603
Role model .110 .148 .638* .424 .215 .668
Demo Leadership .208 .347 .599* .279 .147 .622
Appropriately lead .128 .272 .475* .042 .389 .469
Timely manner .216 .282 .442* .084 .398 .487
Ready to adapt .240 .010 .199 .696* .020 .583
Recognize conflict .234 -.010 .314 .693* -.075 .639


523
DM Process .060 .218 .170 .635* .305 .576
Weigh importance .164 .295 .113 .601* .420 .664
Identify needs .381 .199 .238 .558* -.154 .577
Identify problems .236 -.194 .388 .447* .227 .495
Prepare .135 .230 .416 .436* .349 .556
Proper weigh .386 .119 .092 .087 .687* .650
Allocate task .245 .267 .271 .005 .674* .659
Goals .236 .344 .281 .130 .549* .572
Members' progress .090 .360 .243 .228 .474* .473
Eigenvalue 13.22 2.40 2.01 1.23 1.028
% of variance 41.30 7.49 6.29 3.86 3.21
Cronbachs alpha
Note: Values equal to or larger than .40 are given in boldface type. * Highest factor loading
of each item.
The five-factor solution obtained from the principal components analysis with varimax
rotation accounted for 62.14% of the variance in the TSQ items. The rotated factor matrix is
presented in Table 2. The first rotated factor included 7 items with loadings exceeding .60
and explained 41.30% of the variance. All these items are the same with the items stated
under the original Communication subscale from ONeil, Lee, Wang and Mulkey (1999)
scale structure.
The second factor also included 7 items with loadings exceeding .50 and represented 7.49%
of the variance. Six out of seven items from the original Interpersonal Skills subscale and one
item from the Leadership subscale loaded on this factor. These items clearly refer to the
interpersonal skills required from each participating member of the team when dealing with
other team members. Hence, the theme Interpersonal Skills is maintained.
The third rotated factor represented by another 7 items with loadings over .40 which
explained 6.29% of the variance. Most of the original Leadership items (6 of 7) with one
Coordination item loaded on this factor. All of these items essentially reflect the need for
leadership role in mobilizing the members of the team in completing the assigned tasks, and
thus being the reason for maintaining the Leadership as a theme.
Initially, seven items loaded on the fourth factor with loadings ranging from .42 to .69 with
four items from the Adaptability subscale and another three items from the Decision Making
subscale. They represented 3.86% of the variance. However, there was a contamination on
the result, whereby the seventh item loaded on this factor faced cross loading with Factor 3
with the loading difference of .02. This item, therefore, was indefinable. Nevertheless, the
discussion of Factor 4 centers primarily on the mix issues of adaptability and decision
making. The researchers therefore suggests that the items be regrouped under the theme
accountability.
Finally, three out of four items loaded on Factor 5 are from the Coordination subscale with
another item grouped under the Decision Making subscale. The readings of loading varied
from .47 to .69 and accounted for 3.21% of the variance. The items loaded under this factor
focus on the effort of bringing together different interrelated tasks allocated to each team


524
member towards achieving specified objectives. Thus, these items should also be clustered
under the theme Synchronization.
4.4 Discussion
The final five-factor structure obtained from this investigation suggests that the TSQ is a
multidimensional scale looking into various dimensions of perceptions towards teamwork.
This paper will further discuss on these dimensions in terms of the degree to which they
reflect the emerged themes of perceiving teamwork. The use of principal component analysis
in analyzing the responses gathered from the TSQ has helped us to identify the emerging of
two new themes in addition to the three initial themes. The first factor to appear is
communication. According to Kuehl (2001), communication is a clear and accurate exchange
of information. Communication seems to be the only factor that carries the whole of its initial
subscale. It focuses mainly on the application of communication skills when working in
teams. Hamdan (1993) noted that communication means sharing something which can be in
terms of idea, attitudes, values, opinions, facts and information. Thus, effective
communication that requires a two-way communication either through verbal communication
of receiving and giving instructions and information; or through non-verbal communication
such as listening and paying attention, contributes to the success of team working (Bakare,
Noraini and Oseni, 2010). This is because it helps the members of the team understand the
work they are doing, towards which direction they are heading too and to what extent their
contributions are needed in meeting the desired objectives.
Interpersonal skills emerged as the second factor. Interpersonal skills are defined as
cooperative interaction with other team members (Kuehl, 2001). It discusses the ways one
should to treat himself in relation to others and also the way he should respect and treat other
members too. To become an effective member of the team, one must to possess people skills
in addition to his intrapersonal skills because managing a team means managing human, and
human management is actually a complex task.
The third factor on leadership is the provision of direction for the team (Kuehl, 2001). It is
important for the teachers to have a clear and true understanding of the term leadership and
its impact on teamwork. It is due to the fact that current impressions of team leadership have
it associated with only the formal role, existing in the school hierarchy (Mansberger, 2005).
She also mentioned that one of the two broad categories of concern reported by the principals
is the ineffective leadership or poor relationships on the team. Hence, she suggested that
empowering teacher leadership by organizing teachers into professional learning teams, small
learning communities, or interdisciplinary teaching teams has become an increasingly
common strategy in school reform initiatives over the past decade.
Accountability, as the fourth factor means oneself being responsible and liable of his actions
towards other members of the teams as well as the organization. With accountability comes
the obligation, and with it comes the commitment. When the individual member understands
his role as the team members that can either positively or negatively affect the team, he
would give full dedication and loyalty as he understands that successful teamwork will
provide many benefits to the school as the organization (Gladstein, 1984; Guzzo and Dickson,
1996; and Katzenbach and Smith, 1993).
The fifth and final factor talks about synchronization. It is defined by the bringing together
the strength of each team members in achieving the organizational goals. It involves the
effort of optimizing each members abilities in ensuring that the success of achieving


525
organizational goals is as a result of the contributions from all. The contributions can only be
obtained if only synchronization is applied when completing the assigned tasks.
5 Conclusion
As conclusion, the findings of this investigation shall not stop here. The result that
demonstrated the underlying dimensions of how the teachers perceive teamwork is expected
to be used in future research that will extend the current study. It will be interesting and
valuable to further explore the relationships that may exist between these latent variables with
other factors such as the teachers demographic factors or the extensiveness of practice of
working in teams among these teachers in their day-to-day job at school. The findings are
beneficial to understand and determine the success or failure of the practice of teamwork in
the educational institutions especially the school. It will further aid teachers, educators,
administrators, and professional development coordinators to adequately prepare, train, and
support teachers so that they may become effective members of the team.
6. References
1. American Psychological Association (2001), Publication manual of the American
psychological association (5
th
ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
2. Bailley, S.E., Dunham, K. and Kral, M.J., (2000), Factor structure of the Grief
Experience Questionnaire (GEQ). Death studies, 24, pp 721-738.
3. Bakare K.K., Che N. H, Oseni. A. R., (2010), Second language learner expectation of
classroom communication. OIDA International journal of sustainable development,
1(9), pp 2126.
4. Creswell, J.W., (2005), Educational research (4
th
ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Merill
Prentice Hall.
5. Fraenkel, J.R., and Wallen, N.E., (2005), How to design and evaluate research in
education (6
th
ed.). New York: Mc-Graw-Hill.
6. Hansen, R.S., (2006), Benefit and problem with student teams: Suggestions for
improving team project, Journal of education for business, 82, pp 11-19.
7. Khaliq, A., (2007), Management from Islamic perspective (2
nd
ed.). Kuala Lumpur:
Research Centre, IIUM.
8. Mansberger, N.B., (2005), When teacher teams go bad. Principal Leadership. 6, pp 22
-26.
9. Park, S., Henkin, A.B., and Egley, R., (2005), Teacher commitment, teamwork and
trust: Exploring associations. Journal of educational administration, 43, pp 462-479.
10. Sahari, M. (2005). Teachers orientation to students note-taking strategy to facilitate
thoughtful learning (1
st
ed.). Kuala Lumpur: Research Centre, IIUM.


526
11. Sheppard, B. and Brown, J., (2000), So you think team leadership is easy? Training
and implementation concerns. National association of secondary school principals
bulletin, 84, pp 71-83.
12. Stone, R.W and Bailey, J.J., (2007), Team conflict self-efficacy and out come
expectancy of business students, Journal of education for business, 82, pp 258-266.

Eij Mrs 4042

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eij Mrs 4042

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH

Online Open Access publishing platform for Management Research

You might also like