The United States Army currently uses after action reviews (AARs) to give personnel feedback on their performance. However, due to the growing use of geographically distributed teams, the traditional AAR, with participants and a moderator in the same room, is becoming difficult; therefore, distributed AARs are becoming a necessity. However, distributed AARs have not been thoroughly researched. To determine what type of distributed AARs would best facilitate team training in distributed Army operations, feedback media platforms must be compared. This research compared three types of AARs, which are no AAR, teleconference AAR, and teleconference AAR with visual feedback, to determine if there are learning differences among these conditions. Participants completed three search missions and received feedback between missions from one of these conditions. Multiple ANOVAs were conducted to compare these conditions and trials. Results showed that overall the teleconference AAR with visual feedback improved performance the most. A baseline, or no AAR, resulted in the second highest improvement, and the teleconference condition resulted in the worst overall performance. This study has implications for distributed military training and feedback, as well as other domains that use distributed training and feedback.

No description available.

No description available.

Bakgrund: Multiprofessionellt teamarbete används inom somatisk vård och primärvård. Attsamverka i team ingår i sjuksköterskans profession och är en av de sex kärnkompetensernainom professionen. Ett team samverkar gemensamt för att skapa en bättre vårdkvalité och högpatientsäkerhet. Det finns idag en del svårigheter med multiprofessionellt teamarbete enligtteammedlemmar.Syfte: Syftet med denna studie var att beskriva patienters upplevelse av detmultiprofessionella teamets arbete inom primärvård och somatisk vård, samt hur dettapåverkade dem.Metod: En litteraturöversikt baserad på tio kvalitativa artiklar hämtade från databasernaPubMed och CINAHL. Samtliga artiklar har kvalitetsgranskats och bedömts vara avmedelhög till hög kvalitet. En modifierad version av Graneheim och Lundmansinnehållsanalys har använts som stöd i vid analys av resultat.Resultat: I litteraturöversikten identifierades tre huvudgrupper: Teamets kommunikation,bemötande och begränsningar. Teamets kommunikation innefattar patienterna upplevelse avteamets interna kommunikation, teamets kommunikation med patienten och teametsinformationsöverföring till patienten, samt hur patienten påverkades av detta. Teametsbemötande innefattar patienternas upplevelse av hur teamet arbetade med personcentreringoch delaktighet samt vårdrelationen mellan teamet och patient, samt hur detta påverkadepatienten. Teamets begränsningar innefattar patienters upplevelse av teamet vidmultisjuklighet och tidsbrist, samt hur detta påverkade patienter.Slutsats: Resultat tyder på att multiprofessionellt teamarbete enligt patienter, har både bristeroch styrkor beroende på hur sammansvetsat teamet är samt vilka personer som ingår iteamet. Resultat visar att ett sammansvetsat team har en fungerande kommunikation ochupplever mindre stress, men svårare att samarbeta med hälso- och sjukvårdspersonal utanförteamet. Resultat visar även att personen bakom profession är avgörande för hurpersoncentrerad vården är / Background: Multidisciplinary teams are commonly utilized in hospitals. Team cooperationis an essential part of the nurse profession and one of the six core competencies for nurses. Ateam cooperates in order to create high quality health service and ensure patient safety. Todaythere exists some difficulties regarding teams working multidisciplinary, according to teammembers.Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate patients’ experience of a multidisciplinaryteam work in primary care and somatic care, and how it affected the patients.Method: A literature review based on ten qualitative articles retrieved from the databasesPubMed and CINAHL. All articles have been quality reviewed and received medium to highquality grade. A modified version of Graneheim och Lundmans content analysis was usedwhen analysing the results.Result: The literature review identified three categories and seven subcategories. The team'scommunication includes the patients' experience of the team's internal communication, theteam's communication with the patient and information to the patient, as well as how thepatient was affected by everything previously mentioned. The team's response is about thepatients' experience of how the team worked with a person-centered and participation-basedapproach, as well as the care relationship between the team and the patient, and how thisaffected the patient. The teams limmitations describes the patients' experience on how theteam handles of problems arising from multiple illnesses and lack of time, as well as how thisaffected patients.Conclusion: Results indicate that multi-professional teamwork, according to patients, hasboth shortcomings and strengths depending on the cohesiveness of the team, and on theindividuals taking part. A cohesive team has functioning comunication and experience lessstress, but have a harder time coworking with health care professionals outside of the team.Results also show that the person behind the profession is determining for the degree care isperson centered.

The purpose of this study was to aggregate the findings of three distinct areas of research into one model of team effectiveness. Specifically, it was hypothesized that, in accordance with prior research findings, aspects of personality related to social intelligence would predict informal leadership emergence. Furthermore, it was predicted that multiple leaders within a team would positively influence that team's subsequent level of performance, through the mediating influence of team mental model similarity and team mental model accuracy. Participants included 40 computer science and engineering teams, who completed their surveys at time one, whereas performance criterion measures were collected at time two. Contrary to prediction, results indicated that social intelligence was not a significant predictor of leadership emergence, and leadership dispersion did not directly impact team performance. However, leadership dispersion positively impacted team mental model accuracy, and team mental model accuracy and similarity positively affected subsequent team performance, as hypothesized. Therefore, the current study provides partial support for a model of team performance that takes into account multiple leadership within teams and its positive influence on the dissemination and development of important, task-related knowledge structures among team members. / Master of Science

Yes / Team-based Learning (TBL) is a new teaching strategy that may take small group learning to a new level of effectiveness. TBL shifts the focus from content delivery by teachers to the application of course content by student teams. Teams work on authentic problems, make collaborative decisions, and develop problem-solving skills required in their future workplace. Prior to redesigning the MPharm programme according to TBL principles, several pilots were set up to research how students responded to this new way of teaching. One pilot focussed on the introduction of TBL as a phenomena and aimed to find out if and how TBL engaged students, how students were held accountable by their teams, and more importantly how that affected their lifeworld. Ashworth’s lifeworld contingencies provided the theoretical framework as it ranges from students’ selfhood, embodiment and social interactions to their ability to carry out tasks they are committed to and regard as essential (Ashworth, 2003).

The decisions behind choosing teammates for an interdisciplinary team are significant. Team assembly – the reasons behind individuals’ decisions about whom to work with in teams – likely play a key role in shaping crucial team processes, such as conflict and viability. This thesis advances a two dimensional taxonomy of team assembly where member decisions of who to team up with can be: (1) driven by team maintenance or task performance concerns (i.e., team versus task), and (2) based on individual characteristics or dyadic relationships (i.e., compositional versus relational). The effect of these four assembly mechanisms on resulting conflict and viability perceptions were tested in a sample of thirty-nine design teams enrolled in a master’s level human-computer interaction course (over three years). Within each of three cohorts, individuals self-assembled into project teams to develop a product that would better lives in some way. Relational team assembly was measured at week 1, compositional team assembly was measured at week 2, team conflict at week 5, 10 & 14, and team viability at week 14 using surveys. Hypotheses were tested using exponential random graph models to predict conflict tie formation based on dyadic assembly rules, and regression to test if relational team assembly mechanisms predict team viability. Results indicate that taskwork assembly mechanisms predict team conflict, but teamwork assembly mechanisms do not. Relational teamwork and taskwork assembly mechanisms do not predict team viability. Future directions of research in team conflict, team assembly, and team networks are discussed based on the current findings. This thesis contributes to science by providing an interdisciplinary model of team assembly mechanisms, and evaluates the model in explaining team conflict and viability.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.